Point of law: Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act will apply to any petition or application filed under any Act to a civil court. With respect we differ from the view taken by the two judge bench of this Court in Athani Municipal Council case and hold that Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act is not confined to applications contemplated by or under the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition in the present case was to the District Judge as a court. The petition was one contemplated by the Telegraph Act for judicial decision. The petition is an application falling within the scope of Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act.”

JUDGMENT :

(Order on application for Condonation of Delay in filing Revision-C.M. Application No.81056 of 2019)

1. Present revision is filed under Section 83(9) of the Waqf Act, 1995.

2. Office has submitted a report dated 16.07.2019 noting that revision is filed beyond a period of 90 days and, hence, the same is barred by the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963.

3. Counsel for revisionist submits that the revision is filed within a period of three years and, therefore, same is maintainable under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Counsel for revisionist submits that the Waqf Act is a special Act and, therefore, it is not the period of 90 days but the period of three years available as per Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.

4. Counsel for opposite party states that the report submitted by the registry is correct and the Article 137 is not applicable.

5. The law with regard to applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act to a Special Act has been considered in number of cases by the Supreme Court. Some of them are:-

(i) Ganesan represented by its Power Agent G. Rukmani Ganeshn Vs. Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board and Others reported in (2019) 7 SCC 108. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as follow:-

"33. In The Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum Vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma, (1976) 4 SCC 634, this Court had occasion to consider applicability of Article 137 of Limitation Act, application filed under Section 16 of the Telegraphs Act, 1885. This Court in the above case differing with the view taken by the two Judge Bench in Athani’s case held that application under Article 137 of Limitation Act is not confined to application contemplated by or under the C.P.C. However, the application contemplated under Telegraphs Act has to be an application to a Court. In paragraphs 18 and 22 following has been laid held:

“18. The alteration of the division as well as the change in the collocation of words in Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 compared with Article 181 of the 1908 Limitation Act shows that applications contemplated under Article 137 are not applications confined to the Code of Civil Procedure. In the 1908 Limitation Act there was no division between applications in specified cases and other applications as in the 1963 Limitation Act. The words “any other application” under Article 137 cannot be said on the principle of ejusdem generis to be applications under the Civil Procedure Code other than those mentioned in Part I of the third division. Any other application under Article 137 would be petition or any application under any Act. But it has to be an application to a court for the reason that Section 4 and 5 of the 1963 Limitation Act speak of expiry of prescribed period when court is closed and extension of prescribed period if applicant or the appellant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application during such period.

22. The conclusion we reach is that Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act will apply to any petition or application filed under any Act to a civil court. With respect we differ from the view taken by the two judge bench of this Court in Athani Municipal Council case and hold that Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act is not confined to applications contemplated by or under the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition in the present case was to the District Judge as a court. The petition was one contemplated by the Telegraph Act for judicial decision. The petition is an application falling within the scope of Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act.”

34. In the above case since the application under the Telegraphs Act was filed before the Court, this Court held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act was applicable. It is to be noticed that in the above mentioned cases this Court held that applications contemplated under Limitation Act are applications to a Court but in the above