The only point for consideration in this Writ Appeal is whether the Commissioner under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], is a Court within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. An application was filed by the Appellant/Petitioner under Section 63 of the Act before the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Department, Sivagangai (Second Respondent herein) in O.A.No.7 of 2008, to declare the Petitioner as the 'Ambalathaar' for the village. By order dated 31.10.2010, the Second Respondent allowed the application in O.A.No.7 of 2008, declaring the Appellant as the 'Ambalathaar' for the village. Since, the Third Respondent was not a party to O.A.No.7 of 2008, also claiming to be the 'Ambalathaar' for the same village, filed an Appeal aggrieved by the order of the Second Respondent dated 31.10.2010 under Section 69(1) of the Act along with an application to condone the delay of 266 days in filing the Appeal. Under Section 69(1) of the Act, the Appeal against the order of the Second Respondent ought to have been filed before the First Respondent within sixty days from the date of the publication of the order or of the receipt thereof as the case may be. Section 69 of the Act reads as follows:

“69. Appeal to the Commissioner:- (1) Any person aggrieved by any order passed by [the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be,] under any of the foregoing sections of this Chapter may, within sixty days from the date of the publication of the order of the receipt thereof by him, as the case may be, appeal to the Commissioner and the Commissioner may pass such order thereon as he thinks fit.

(2) Any order passed by [the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be,] in respect of which no appeal has been preferred within the period specified in sub-section (1) may be revised by the Commissioner suo moto and the Commissioner may call for and examine the records of the proceedings to satisfy himself as to the regularity of such proceedings or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be]. Any such order passed by [the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner as the case may be], shall be deemed to have been passed by the Commissioner on an appeal preferred to him under sub-section (1).

(3) Any order passed by the Commissioner on such appeal against which no suit lies to the Court under the next succeeding section, or in which no suit has been instituted in the Court within the time specified in sub-section (1) of Section 70 may be modified or cancelled by the Commissioner if the order has settled or modified a scheme for the administration of a religious institution or relates to any of the matters specified in Section 66.”

3. The reason given by the Third Respondent for condonation of delay is that he was ill and could not engage an Advocate. The relevant portion of his affidavit is extracted below:

“3. I submit that after obtaining the order from the office of the Joint Commissioner, I was not able to instruct my counsel at Chennai to prefer the appeal, since I was ill for 7-8 months. I was not able to travel to Chennai to instruct my counsel. Hence, there occurred a delay of 266 days. The said delay is neither willful nor wanton, but for the above said reason.”

4. Along with the condone delay application, the Third Respondent also filed an application seeking leave to file the Appeal before the First Respondent since he was not a party to the impugned proceedings of the Second Respondent in O.A.No.7 of 2008. The Appellant/Petitioner who was declared as 'Ambalathaar' by the Second Respondent by order dated 31.12.2010, filed his counter affidavit in the condone delay and leave application filed by the Third Respondent and in his counter affidavit, he submitted that the First Respondent does not have jurisdict