The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretionary power to condone delay, even if the specific provisions of the Limitation Act may not apply, based on the principles of substantial justice and the absence of a presumption of deliberate delay.

Kalliath, J.

This is an application for condoning the delay of 318 days in filing the Civil Revision Petition. This application is filed under S.5 of the Limitation Act. In support of the application, petitioner has filed an affidavit. Along with the affidavit, petitioner has filed two medical certificates.

2. Before considering the question whether delay has to be condoned or not, we have to consider a technical point raised by counsel for respondent. Counsel for respondent submitted that S.5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable in the matter of a revision filed under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for short, the Act, and as such the application is not maintainable. He submitted that S.5 is applicable only if a time limit is prescribed for filing an appeal or application. S.20 of the Act only provides that the superior court, viz. by virtue of the notification dated 31-8-1989, the High Court "may at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under the Act." Clearly the section does no t provide for a time, when it is provided that the aggrieved party can approach the Superior Court at any time. Since no time limit is prescribed; counsel for respondent contended that S.5 of the Limitation Act has no application.

3. There is some force in this submission. Counsel has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1976SC 177 (Sushila Devi v. Ramanandan Prasad). Of course, this decision related to a question under Kosi area (Restoration of Lands to raiyats ) Act (30 of 1951). But, there is an observation, which is relevant here. The Supreme Court has observed thus:

"The third ground on which the decision of the High Court rests relates to the applicability of S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. We do not see how S.5 could be invoked in connection with the application made on October 17,1965 by the first respondent. Under S.5 of the Limitation Act an appeal or application "may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period." The Collector to whom the application was made was not a court, though S.15 of the Act vested him with certain specified powers under the Code of Civil Procedure; also, the kind of application that was made had no time limit prescribed for it, and no question of extending the time could therefore arise."

4. The second part of the above observation was emphasised by counsel for respondent. It has to be remembered that in a case where no time limit is prescribed for filing an appeal or application, it is not open to contend that the application is beyond time. We say so because, only when a time limit is prescribed, it can be said that the application is beyond time. So long as no prescription is there, it is impossible to say that the Application filed is beyond a specified time. A limitation or a default of filing an appeal or an application beyond time postulates a fixation of a particular or a specified time for filing an application or appeal. This question was considered by this court in 1988 (2) KLT 74 (Narayanan v. Rent Controller). Viswanatha Iyer, J. considering S.20 of the Act said that, S.20 of the Act does not specify any time limit for approaching the revisional court. On the other hand, it enables the District Court at any time to call for and examine the records of the appellate Authority in relation to any order passed or proceedings taken, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of the said order or proceedings." After holding so, Viswanatha Iyer, J. observed that though no time limit is prescribed or fixed in S.20, it does not mean that the revisional court can exercise its jurisdiction at any future time without any limitation whatsoever. This His Lordship said o