( 1 ) BY our order dated 13-4-1978, we have allowed the application made by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of the delay in filing this appeal. While doing so, in that order we had stated that the reasons for holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies also to appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No, 68 of 1976), will be given later. Accordingly, we are now stating the reasons for taking this view.

( 2 ) SHRI V. S. Shroti, learned counsel for the respondent, placing reliance on hukumdev Narain v. Lalit Narain, AIR 1974 SC 480 contended that the different limitation of thirty days prescribed in Sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955, as a result of the Amendment Act No. 68 of 1976, excluded the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1%3 to appeals filed under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by virtue of Sub-section, (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In reply, Shri A. K. Khaskalam, learned counsel for the appellant, placed reliance on Mangu Ram v. Delhi Municipality, air 1976 SC 105 to contend that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to such appeals, because provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) of the limitation Act, 1963, are made expressly applicable by Sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that there is no express exclusion of the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, by the special Act, viz. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended by Act No. 68 of 1976. ( 3 ) UNDER the Limitation Act of 1908, Section 29 thereof did not expressly apply section 5 of that Act as it did Section 4, Sections 9 to 18 and Section 22 of that act unless they were expressly excluded by any special or local law, to a case where a different limitation was prescribed by any special or local law and it was also stated that the remaining provisions of that Act shall not apply to such cases. On the contrary, Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963 expressly applies sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) in all such cases unless their application is expressly excluded by any such special or local law. The departure is clear and unequivocal inasmuch as Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is now ordinarily applicable to all such cases, unless there is express exclusion of its application in such cases by the special or local law. The scope of Section 5 as enacted in limitation Act, 1963, is also wider than the corresponding provision in the limitation Act of 1908. The result is that ordinarily Section 5 of the Limitation act, 1963, must be held applicable even where Section 29 of the Act is attracted, there being a different limitation prescribed by any special or local law and the applicability of Section 5 can be excluded in such cases only when it is found that it has been expressly excluded by such special or local law. The conclusion would depend on the result of an enquiry made in this manner. Before examining the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as amended by the Amendment Act No. 68 of 1976, we may refer to the principles laid down in the two decisions relied on from both sides.

( 4 ) IN Mangu Ram v. Delhi Municipality (AIR 1976 SC 105) (supra) the question was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to an application for special leave made under Section 417 (3) of the Cr. P. C. 1898, in view of the imperative language used while prescribing a different limitation of sixty days in sub-sec. (4) of Section 417, Cr. P. C. Their Lordships, after examining the scheme of Section 29 of the Limitation Act of 1963, held that even though section 29 (2) was attracted to that case and the language in Sub-section (4)of Section 417 of the Cr. P. C. , 1898 was mandatory and compulsive, yet section 5 of the Limitation Act must apply to that case. Their Lordships, in taking that view, st