Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to an application under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (New) and the court may condone the delay in filing the application if sufficient cause is shown.

1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated January 24, 1980, passed by the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, It arises in the following circumstances : An application under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was filed by non-petitioner No. 1, Mst. Kishni Devi for grant of maintenance to her, and her minor daughter Vidya Devi and minor son, Kundanlal. That application was allowed on September, 1975. The petitioner husband filed a revision in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Sri Ganganagar which was disposed of on May 30, 1977, and there was some modifications in the: amount of maintenance. But, instead of deciding himself as to from which date the maintenance should be payable, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the Magistrate to consider the matter and order as to from which date the amount of maintenance should be payable from the date of the order of the learned Magistrate or the date of the application, i.e. July 9, 1968.? The learned Magistrate considered the matter arid by his order dated August 1, 1977, ordered that the amount of maintenance shall be payable to Mst. Kishni Devi and her minor daughter and son, with effect from the date of application, i.e. July 9, 1968. A revision was filed against the order, by the petitioner. But, that revision petition was also dismissed on October 9, 1978.

2. On November 13, 1978, an application under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (new) was filed by Mst. Kishns Devi non-petitioner, & he informed the learned Magistrate, that her husband has failed without sufficient reason, to comply with the order made against him for maintenance, and as such, a warrant for levying the the amount due should be issued. A show-cause notice was given to the petitioner, who raised a plea that the application for the issue of warranty has been filed more than one year after the date the amount became due, and is not maintainable, the court cannot issue any warrant. Thereafter, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, duly supported by the affidavit of Mst. Kishni Devi was filed. An affidavit of the learned advocate was also filed, wherein, the circumstances were mentioned seeking condonation of the delay. The learned Magistrate condoned the delay, and ordered that a warrant be issued for levying the amount of Rs. 15, 400/-, being the amount of maintenance from July 9, 1968 till the date of the application.

3. The first contention of the learned advocate for the petitioners is that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to an application under Sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (new). His contention is that the proceedings under Sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (new) are of the nature of execution proceedings, and therefore, Section 5 will not apply to such proceedings. But, whatever may be the law prior to the coming into force of the Limitation Act, 1963, after its coming into force, the position of law is settled that Section 5 of it will apply. A reference may be made to the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mangu Ram and Another v. Delhi Municipality, AIR 1976 SC 105 , wherein their Lordships have laid down that Section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply to all cases unless its applicability is excluded expressly by local law. Therefore, there can be no dispute that Section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply to all cases unless its applicability is excluded expressly by local law. A look at Section 5 of the Limitation Act will show that its applicability is only excluded to an application under any of the provisions of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Merely because the provisions of Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are in the nature of execution proceedings it cannot be said t