Back
2005(2) JLJ 316
(FULL BENCH)
R.V. Raveendran, C.J., A.K. Mishra and K.K. Lahoti, JJ.
M.P. State Electricity Board, Jabalpur v. M/s. Pandey Construction Co.
Civil Revision No. 633 of 2003; on reference; Decided on 13.4.2005:
In C.R. No. 133012003, question has been referred for consideration of Larger Bench as to applicability of section 5 of Limitation Act to a revision preferred under section 19 of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. [Para 1
Held: An examination of section 19 shows that it prescribes a period of limitation. The same becomes different period of limitation as contemplated under section 29 of Limitation Act as there is no period of limitation prescribed in the Schedule to the Limitation Act for a revision to be filed under the Act of 1983. Where there is no provision in the Schedule to the Limitation Act for a particular suit, appeal or application, in a situation identical with that for which the special law provides the test of prescription of a period of limitation different from the period prescribed under the Schedule, is satisfied. [Para 14
The requirement• to attract section 29 of Limitation Act that special or local law prescribes limitation for suit, appeal or application, that is to be treated a different period from the period prescribed by the Schedule, as there is omission in the Schedule with respect to the limitation for revision under section 19 of the Act of 1983, one of requirements stands satisfied. Yet another aspect may be noted. Revision filed under section 19 of the Act of 1983 can be filed "within a period of three months" and reference to the month shall mean a month reckoned according to British Calendar as provided in sub-section (35) of section 3 of General Clauses Act, 1897. This is different from the period prescribed for revisions in the Limitation Act, which is 90 days. 2004(2) MPJR 374 (SC) affirming 2003(II) MPWN 152 followed. AIR 1995 SC 2272, (2003) 2 SCC 577, AIR 1974 SC 480, AIR 1985 SC 1289, AIR 1989 SC 1477, AIR 1996 SC 2437, 1980 JLJ 280 (SC), AIR 1964 SC 260 and AIR 1964 SC 1099 discussed. [Para 16
(2) Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (M.P.)--S. 19-d`revision petition -- High Court can exercise powers of revision suo motu within reasonable time beyond three months. (1969) 2 SCC 187 = AIR 1969 SC 1297 followed. 1990 RN 77 and 1999 RN 82 relied on. [Para 27 to 30
(3) Constitution of India--Art. 141 -- order of Supreme Court affirming D.E. decision of M.P. High Court [2003(1I) MPWN 152] reported in 2004(2) MPJR 374 (SC) -- is binding precedent.
It is clear that apex Court has given the reasons for affirming the order and dismissing Special Leave Petition in Nagarpalika Parishad, Morena v. Agrawal Construction Co. [2004(2) MPJR 374 (SC)], speaking order has been passed while refusing to grant the leave to file appeal. Question for consideration is whether the order passed by the Supreme Court of dismissal of Special Leave Petition is binding as precedent? [Para 21
Held: In our opinion, the order passed by Supreme Court in Nagarpalika Parishad, Morena (supra) is a speaking order, gives reasons for refusing to grant leave, thus, statement of law contained in the order is a‘ dec1aratibnof law by Supreme Court within the meaning Of Article 141 of"-Constitution ‘of India. The findings‘;‘ recorded by Supreme Court bind the Court in any proceeding subsequent thereto. It is what is required of judicial discipline. Further, it is well settled that a High Court cannot declare that a decision of Supreme Court is per incuriam. [Para 24
In view of above, we find that the decision rendered by the apex Court in Nagarpalika Parishad, Morena (supra) is a binding precedent as per Article 141 of Constitution, it requires observance. (2003) 2 SCC 577, (2001) 8 SCC 470, (2002) 8 SCC 361, (2002) 3 SCC 202, AIR 2003 SC 1455, (2004)9 SCC 100, (1993) 3 SCC 114, (1991) 4 SCC 139, (1989) 1 SCC 101 and AIR 2000 SC 2587 discussed and followed. [Para 25
¼1½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 ¼e-ç-½& &/kkjk 19& &ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963& &/kkjk 5] 29 rFkk vuq-1&lu~ 1983 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19 ds v/khu iqujh{k.k&Qkby djus esa foyac&ekQ ugha fd;k tk ldrk D;ksafd ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5 ykxw ugha gksrhA
flfoy iqujh{k.k Ø-1330@2003 esa e-ç-] ek/;LFke vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983 dh /kkjk 19 ds v/khu çLrqr fd, x, iqujh{k.k dks ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5 ykxw gksus ds ckjs esa ç‘u c`gÙkj U;k;ihB ds fopkjkFkZ funsZf‘kr fd;k x;k gSA ¼iSjk 1½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % /kkjk 19 ds iqujh{k.k ls nf‘kZr gksrk gS fd mlesa ifjlhek dh vof/k fofgr gSA og ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 29 ds v/khu ;Fkk vuq/;kr ifjlhek dh fHkUu vof/k gks tkrh gS D;ksafd ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dh vuqlwph esa lu~ 1983 ds vf/kfu;e ds v/khu Qkby fd, tkus okys iqujh{k.k ds fy, ifjlhek dh vof/k fofgr ugha gSaA tgk¡ ml fLFkfr dh le:i fLFkfr esa ftlds fy, fo‘ks"k fof/k esa vuqlwph ds v/khu fofgr vof/k ls fHkUu ifjlhek dh vof/k fofgr fd, tkus dk ijh{k.k micaf/kr gS] fdlh fof‘k‘V okn] vihy ;k vkosnu ds fy, ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dh vuqlwph esa dksbZ mica/k ugha gS] bl ‘krZ dh iwfrZ gksrh gSA ¼iSjk 14½
ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 29 vkÑ‘V djus dh bl ,d vis{kk dh iwfrZ gksrh gS fd fo‘ks"k ;k LFkkuh; fof/k esa okn] vihy ;k vkosnu ds fy, ,slh ifjlhek fofgr gks ftls vuqlwph }kjk fofgr vof/k ls fHkUu vof/k ekuk tk, D;ksafd vuqlwph esa lu~ 1983 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19 ds v/khu iqujh{k.k ds fy, ifjlhek ds laca/k esa yksi gSA ,d vU; igyw ij Hkh /;ku fn;k tk,A lu~ 1983 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19 ds v/khu Qkby fd;k x;k iqujh{k.k ^^rhu ekl dh vof/k ds Hkhrj** Qkby fd;k tk ldrk gS rFkk ekl ds funsZ‘k dk vFkZ gksxk lk/kkj.k [kaM vf/kfu;e] 1897 dh /kkjk 3 dh mi/kkjk ¼35½ esa ;Fkk micaf/kr] fczfV‘k dSyasMj ds vuqlkj x.kuk fd;k x;k eklA ;g ifjlhek vf/kfu;e esa iqujh{k.kksa ds fy, fofgr vof/k ls tks 90 fnu dh gS] fHkUu gSA 2003¼2½ e-ç- ohDyh uksV~l 152 vfHkiq"V djus okyk 2004¼2½ ,e ih ts vkj 374 ¼,l lh½ vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1995 ,l lh 2272] ¼2003½ 2 ,l lh lh 577] , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 480] , vkb vkj 1985 ,l lh 1289] , vkb vkj 1989 ,l lh 1477] , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 2437] 1980 ts ,y ts 280 ¼mPpre U;k-½ , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 260 rFkk , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 1099 foosfprA ¼iSjk 16½
¼2½ ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1983¼e-ç-½& &/kkjk 19& &iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk& &mPp U;k;ky; rhu ekl ds i‘pkr Hkh ;qfDr;qDr le; ds Hkhrj iqujh{k.k dh ‘kfDr Loçsj.kk ls ç;qDr dj ldrk gSA ¼1969½ 2 ,l lh lh 187&, vkb vkj 1969 ,l lh 1297 vuqlfjrA 1990 jk fu 77 rFkk 1999 jk fu 82 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 27 ls 30½
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku& &vuq- 141& &e-ç- mPp U;k;ky; dh [kaM U;k;ihB ds fofu‘p; ¿2003¼2½ e-ç-ohDyh uksV~l 152À dh vfHkiqf"V djus okyk 2004¼2½ ,e ih ts vkj 374 ¼,l lh½ esa laçdkf‘kr mPpre U;k;ky; dk vkns‘k&vkc)dj iwoZ fu.kZ; gSA
Li"V gS fd loksZPp U;k;ky; us uxjikfydk ifj"kn] eqjSuk fo] vxzoky dULVªD‘ku Ø- ¿2004¼2½ ,e ih ts vkj 374À vkns‘k dh vfHkiqf"V djus vkSj fo‘ks"k btktr ;kfpdk [kkfjt djus ds dkj.k nsrs gq,] vihy Qkby dh btktr nsus ls badkj djrs gq, vk[;kid vkns‘k ikfjr fd;k gSA fopkjkFkZ ç‘u ;g gS fd D;k mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fo‘ks"k btktr ;kfpdk dh [kkfjth dk vkns‘k iwoZ fu.kZ; ds :i esa vkc)dj gS\ ¼iSjk 21½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % gekjh jk; esa] mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk uxjikfydk ifj"kn] eqjSuk ¼iwoksZDr½ esa ikfjr vkns‘k vk[;kid vkns‘k gS] mlesa btktr çnku djus ls badkj djus ds dkj.k fn, x, gSa] vr% vkns‘k esa varfoZ"V fof/k dk dFku Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 141 ds vFkkZrxZr mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fof/k dh ?kks"k.kk gSA mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kZ mlds i‘pkr~orhZ fdlh Hkh dk;Zokgh esa U;k;ky; ds fy, vkc)dj gksrh gSA ;gh U;kf;d vuq‘kklu ls visf{kr gSA blds vfrfjDr] ;g lqLFkkfir gS fd mPp U;k;ky; ;g ?kksf"kr ugha dj ldrk fd mPpre U;k;ky; dk fofu‘p; vuc/kkurk ds dkj.k fn;k x;k gSA ¼iSjk 24½
mi;qZDr dh n`f"V ls gekjk fu"d"kZ gS fd loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk uxjikfydk ifj"kn eqjSuk ¼iwoksZDr½ esa fn;k x;k fofu‘p; Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 141 ds vuqlkj vkc)dj iwoZ fu.kZ; gS] mldk ikyu visf{kr gSA ¼2003½2 ,l lh lh 577] ¼2001½ 8 ,l lh lh 470] ¼2002½ 8 ,l lh lh 361] ¼2002½ 3 ,l lh lh 2002] , vkb vkj 2003 ,l lh 1455] ¼2004½ 9 ,l lh lh 100] ¼1993½ 3 ,l lh lh 114] ¼1991½ 4 ,l lh lh 139] ¼1989½ 1 ,l lh lh 101 rFkk , vkb vkj 2000 ,l lh 2587 foosfpr rFkk vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 25½
Mishra, J.--1. In C.R. No. 133012003, question has been referred for consideration of Larger Bench as to applicability of section 5 of Limitation Act to a revision preferred under section 19 of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1983") beyond period of limitation in the High Court. Revision is barred by limitation. Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision. Correctness of the decision of Division Bench in Nagarpalika Parishad, Morena v. Agrawal Construction Co. [2003(II) MPWN 152 = 2004(II) MPJR SN 55] taking the view that in the absence of provision in Act of 1983 delay cannot be condoned under section 5 of Limitation Act has been referred for consideration of Larger Bench on 7.5.2004 in the light of decision rendered by the apex Court in Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker, [(1995) 5 SCC 5 =AIR 1995 SC 2272]. In C.R. No. 633/2003, C.R. No. 1000/2003 and C.R. No. 151/2004, similar question has been referred. After the reference was made, Special Leave Petition arising out of Division Bench decision in the matter of Nagar Palika Parishad, Morena (supra) has been dismissed by the apex Court as per Order dated 27.8.2004. Thereafter esteemed brother Dipak Misra, J., in C.R. No. 1119/2003 has referred two questions for consideration by Larger Bench which includes the question whether decision of apex Court of dismissal of SLP is a binding precedent. Two questions referred for consideration are quoted below :
"(a) Whether 'the power of High Court for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 19 of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 is totally constricted and restricted to a period of three months of the passing of the award which is the limitation prescribed for an aggrieved party or it can exercise such power of revision suo motu within a reasonable period of time that can travel beyond three months ?
(b) Whether the decision rendered in the case of Nagarpalika Parishad v. Agrawal Construction Co. [2004(2) MPJR 374] would be a binding precedent ?"
2. Facts giving rise to the revisions need not be elaborated as only question for consideration is whether delay can be condoned in filing revision in exercise of power under section 5 of Limitation Act as the revisions have been preferred beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 19 of the Act of 1983 which prescribes the limitation for filing revision to be three months from the date of the award by an aggrieved party. Sub-section (1) of section 19 empowers the High Court to exercise power of revision suo motu at any time or on an application by aggrieved party to be filed within three months.
3. Shri M.L. Jaiswal, Sr. Advocate, Shri V.R. Rao, Shri Sanjay K. Yadav and Shri Mohd. Nasir, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners have submitted that provision of Limitation Act, 1963 have not been expressly or by implication excluded by the Act of 1983; and that, thus, by virtue of section 29(2) of Limitation Act, provision of sections 4 to 24 shall apply, and consequently section 5 of Limitation Act is also applicable. They have also placed reliance on the scheme of Act of 1983 to contend that, it nowhere excludes the applicability of the Limitation Act, as a different period of limitation has been prescribed than prescribed by the schedule, hence by virtue of section 3 of Limitation Act, revision filed is subject to sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) of Limitation Act. Revision is provided under section 19 of Act of 1983 to the High Court which is a Court as such provision of Limitation Act applies. There is no exclusion by special or local law, that is by the Act of 1983. Decision in Nasiruddin and others v. Sitaram and others (2003) 2 SCC 577, is distinguishable as that is in the context of condonation of default in depositing the rent under the concerned Rent Control Act where power to condone the delay was expressly excluded. It has also been submit
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
