Provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act can be made applicable to application under Section 4(4) of T.N.P.I.D. Act.

(Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, against the orders dated 22.07.2005 on the file of the Special Judge, T.N.P.I.D. Act, Chennai in I.A. Nos.224 and 225/2004 in O.A. Nos. nil.)

Common Judgment:

These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals preferred by one Ashok viz., the 10th respondent before the Special Judge, T.N.P.I.D. Act, Chennai ("Tribunal"), are directed against the orders dated 22.07.2005 passed by the Tribunal in I.A. Nos.224 and 225/2004 in O.A. Nos. nil, whereby the Tribunal condoned the delay of 308 days and 276 days respectively, in filing the Original Applications and allowed the petitions filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. The Competent Authority and Additional Commissioner (Cinema & Irrigation) Land Administration Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 5 filed I.A. Nos. 224 and 225 of 2004 before the Tribunal contending that G.O. Ms. Nos.61 and 123 Home (Courts IIA) Department dated 21.01.2002 and 13.02.2002 were received on 28.01.20025 and 28.02.2002 respectively and steps were being taken to enquire into the matter and to file O.As. before the Tribunal within the prescribed time of thirty days under Section 4(4) of the T.N.P.I.D. Act, 1997 ("TNPID Act"). It was his further contention that to satisfy that the Financial Establishment has committed fraud, on receipt of the said G.Os., action was initiated to conduct enquiry with some depositors, accused and Investigating Officer and enquiries were conducted on three occasions and the Collector of Coimbatore and Registrar of Registration Department, Coimbatore were addressed for publication of attachment, besides collection of various documents and evidence relating to the attached properties to ascertain ownership details and genuineness of attachment and this long process caused inevitable delay and such delay is not wanton and it is only attributable to administrative reasons. According to him, the time-limit of 30 days is only directory rather than mandatory and the purpose of such time-limit was only to expedite the filing of the O.As. and nothing else and since public interest is involved in filing of this O.A., the afore-mentioned long process had to be necessarily undergone and hence, the delay in filing the O.As. has to be condoned.

3. The tenth respondent before the Tribunal who is the appellant herein in both the appeals, by filing his counter, contended that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, does not apply to the provisions of TNPID Act since it applies only to the proceedings arising in a suit or in any appeal under the C.P.C. and it cannot be applied to the period of limitation provided under the statute and hence, the delay in filing the O.As. under Section 4(4) of TNPID Act should not be condoned and the petitions have to be dismissed.

4. The Tribunal, on hearing both sides and on examination of one witness on the side of the Competent Authority, came to the conclusion that the limitation period of 30 days is only directory and Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the provisions of Section 4(4) of the TNPID Act and accordingly, condoned the delay in filing the O.As. and allowed the petitions filed by the Competent Authority.

5. Mr. P. Rajamanickam, learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals has contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the proceedings under the TNPID Act since it was not excluded by the provision of the TNPID Act. According to him, exclusion need not be express and special provisions fixing a time limit shall exclude all other provisions in the Limitation Act. It was his further contention that the Competent Authority has not explained everyday's delay in filing the petition and on that ground also, the order of the Tribunal has to be set aside.

6. Per contra, Mr. Senthilnathan, learned Additional Government Pleader (C.S.) contended t