Applicability of provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act.

The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the un-numbered plaint in O.S. on the file of the Sub-Court Salem and the petitioner in I.A.No.471 of 1994 in that unnumbered suit. The respondents are the defendants in the said un-numbered suit and the respondents in that application. That un-numbered suit was filed under Sec.70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 as amended by Act 39 of 1996, hereinafter referred to as the Endowments Act, against the order of the Commissioner of H.R. & C.E., Madras passed under Sec.69 of the Endowments Act. Under Sec.70(1)(ii) of the Endowments Act, the time prescribed for filing the suit is fixed as within 90 days from the date of the receipt of such order. On the date when the suit was filed before the Sub-Court, Salem since the 90 days period had expired, an application under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act bearing I.A.No.417 of 1994 came to be filed with a request to condone the delay of 131 days in filing the said suit. That application was dismissed holding that the court has no power to condone as the Limitation Act is not applicable. Hence, the present revision before this Court.

2. I heard Mr.T.L.Ram Mohan learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner; Mr.V.Srikanth learned Government Advocate on the civil side for respondent 1 to respondent 4 and Mr.W.C.Thiruvengadam learned counsel appearing for respondent 5 and respondent 6. The learned trial Judge had dismissed the said application holding that in as much as the proceeding before the court being a suit, there is no question of condoning the delay in filing the said suit as Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the Limitation Act, does not enable any court to condone the delay in filing a suit though such a power is vested in respect of other proceedings before the court. In other words, solely on the ground that there is no power to condone the delay in filing the said suit and without going into the question whether there is any sufficient cause or not in filing the suit belatedly, the issue had been decided against the plaintiff. Mr.T.L.Ram Mohan learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit as provided for under Sec.70 of the Endowments Act is not a suit as known in the common legal parlance. Cases normally known as suits in common legal parlance are these suits which are not provided under any enactment or Statute (both Central or State), but only relates to those cases where a citizen approaches the court directly to enforce his remedy. According to the learned senior counsel, a reading of the scheme of the Endowments Act would only indicate that the suit provided for under Sec.70 of the Endowments Act is nothing but a continuation of the proceeding under the said Act itself and therefore it must be characterised only as a statutory suit different from a regular and conventional suit. In that event Sec.5 of the Limitation Act would apply. The learned Government Advocate on the civil side would argue that the order of the learned Sub-Judge is in accordance with law and no interference is called for. Mr.W.C.Thiruvengadam learned counsel appearing for respondent 5 and respondent 6 would argue that there is no basis or principle on which the suit provided for under Sec.70 of the Endowments Act can be construed to be a suit different from the one that is normally known in common legal parlance. It is not possible to make any distinction between the two types of suits though the one on hand is provided for under the Statute. When this being the position and when in respect of ordinary suits there is no question of extending the period of limitation in filing the said suit, the same principle would apply to the suits provided for under Sec.70 of the Endowments Act. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent 5 and respondent 6 is that the Limitation Act will have no application to the suit on hand.

3. In the light of the a