KSEB Vs. PARVATHI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been referred to the division Bench, as it raises a question of limitation under Art. 137 of the limitation Act, 1963. In respect of telegraph lines taken by the petitioner, the Kerala State Electricity Board, over the property of the respondent, a sum of Rs. 1708-55 was paid on 30-4-68 as compensation for the damages caused, under S. 10 (d) of the Indian Telegraph Act. 1885 read with S. Si of the Indian electricity Act. The Respondent applied on 11-6-71 to the District Judge, claiming enhanced compensation. THIS was under S. 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act which provides that any dispute concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under S. 10 (d) shall, on application for that purpose, by either of the disputing parties, to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him. Objection was raised that the application having been filed more than three years from the payment of the amount, was barred by limitation under Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which reads: The objection was disallowed by the District Judge by the order sought to be revised.

(2.) IT was conceded before us that the District Judge acting under S. 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act, acts as a Court. To that effect is also the decision of Viswanatha Iyer, J. in 1973 KLT. 968.

(3.) IN the face of the decisions of the Supreme Court, it is unnecessary for us to deal with the decisions of the High Courts. Counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to L. Amarnath v. Union of INdia (AIR 1957 All. 206) where it was held that Art. 181 applies also to applications under the Arbitration Act, and that after the amendments effected in 1940 to art. 158 and 178, the view that Art. 181 applies only to applications under the code of Civil Procedure, is no longer tenable. The decision refers to a decision of the Punjab High court in Union of INdia v. Firm Kiroo Mal (AIR. 1952 Punjab 423) and of the Calcutta High Court in Shah & Co. v. Ishar singh Kirpal Singh & Co. (AIR. 1954 Calcutta, 164) in support of this view. It does not, however, refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sha Mulchand and Co. Ltd. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. (AIR. 1953 SC. 98 ). (The other decisions of the Supreme Court to which we have referred, were subsequent to the ruling ). The decision of the Calcutta High Court in Shah & Co. v. Ishar Singh Kirpal singh & Co. (AIR. 1954 Calcutta 164) was by S. R. Das Gupta, J. The learned judge delivered the judgment in a later Division Bench ruling in Kalinath v. Nagendra Nath (AIR. 1959 Calcutta 81 ). There the learned judge stated that the previous decision in Shah & Co. v. Ishar Singh Kirpal Singh & (AIR. 1954 Calcutta 164) was decided without reference to AIR. 1953 SC. 98. We think it unnecessary to refer in detail to the other decisions of the High Courts in view of the clear pronouncements of the Supreme Court noticed earlier,