THOMAS Vs. MUKUNDA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. Alongwith 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 not 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 1976 SC 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.