AHMMADSAHB ABDUL MILA Vs. BIBIJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A reference was made to a three-Judge Bench, by reference order dated 21st April, 2008. The relevant question is whether the use of the expression "date" used in Article 54 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 'Act') is suggestive of a specific date in the calendar. In S. Brahmanand Vs. K.R. Muthugopal, 2005 12 SCC 764 a. Bench of this Court did not go into this issue. It decided the appeal on the factual scenario applicable. It was however noticed that several High Courts have dealt with the matter differently. In all these cases, for example in Kashi PrasadVs. Chhabi Lal, 1933 AIR(All) 412, Alopi Parshad Vs. Court of Wards,1938 AIR(Lah) 23, Lala Ram SarupVs. Court of Wards, 1940 AIR(PC) 19, Kruitiventi Mallikharjuna Rao Vs. Vemuri Pardhasaradhirao, 1944 AIR(Mad) 218, R. Muniswami GoundarVs. B.M. Shamanna Gouda, 1950 AIR(Mad) 820, Hutchegowda Vs. H.M. Basaviah, 1954 AIR(Mys) 29, Purshottam Sava Vs. Kunverji Devji,1954 AIR(Sau) 104, Lakshminarayana ReddiarVs. Singaravelu Naickerf, 1963 AIR(Mad) 24, Shrikrishna Keshav Kulkarni Vs. Balaji Ganesh Kulkami, 1976 AIR(Bom) 342, P Sivan Muthiah Vs. John Sathiavasagam,1990 1 MLJ 490, the High Courts had decided the issue in the background of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Old Act"). Article 113 of the Old Act is in pari materia with Article 54 of Schedule to the Act. Some of the High Courts took the view that the force of the word fixed' implies that the date should be fixed definitely and should not be left to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances of the case. Some other High Courts, however, took a different view. There are two decisions of this Court i.e. Ramzan Vs.Hussaini, 1990 1 SCC 104 and Tarlok SinghVs. Vijay Kumar Sabharwal, 1996 8 SCC 367. In Tarlok Singh's case (supra) the factual scenario was noticed and the case was decided after referring to Article 54 of the Schedule to the Act. Ramzan's case (supra) related to the specific performance of contingent contract. It was held that the expression 'date fixed for performance' need not be ascertainable in the face of the contract deed and may be ascertainable on the happening of a certain contingent event specified in the contract.

(2.) Article 54 of the Schedule to the Act reads as follows:

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that purposive interpretation has to be given to the expression "the date fixed".