SADASIVA SARALAI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question which arises in this batch of appeals from the judgment of the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode is whether that Tribunal was right in holding that S.5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to it. The appellants herein had filed applications under S.8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act. 26 of 1971 before the Tribunal. All those applications were filed beyond the time fixed under R.3 read with S.8 of Act 26 of 1971. The applicants requested for condonation of delay in separate applications which were filed under S.5 of the Limitation Act. Each one of them had stated reasons, which, according to them, justified condonation of delay in filing the applications. The Tribunal refused to consider the applications on merits for the reason that the Tribunal not being a Court, S.5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to it, and the applications could not, therefore, be entertained. Consequently, the applications were dismissed. The appellants challenge the dismissal of those applications under S.8A of Act 26 of 1971.

(2.) The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Athani Municipality v. Labour Court, Hubli AIR 1969 SC 1335 . It also referred to two earlier decisions reported in Brajnandan Sinha v. Jyothi Narain, AIR 1956 SC 66 , and Jugal Kishore v. Sitamarhi Central Coop. Bank AIR 1967 SC 1494 . The Tribunal also relied on the decisions of this court in Commr. of Agrl. Income Tax v. T. R. Industries, 1981 KLT 398 , and Raman v. Kunhipennu, 1981 KLT 844 , Beeran v. Rajappan 1980 KLT 210 and E.S.I. Corporation v. Ramadas Raddiar, 1980 KLT 425 , to hold that S.5 of the Limitation Act would apply only to courts which were constituted under the Code of Civil Procedure or Code of Criminal Procedure and not to Tribunals of limited jurisdiction.

(3.) Counsel for the appellants relied on Brajnandan Sinha, AIR 1956 SC 66 and Jugal Kishore, AIR 1967 SC 1494, and some of the observations contained in Cheru Ouseph v. Kunhipathumma, 1981 KLT 495 and Mary v. Cherchi, 1980 KLT 353 . A bench consisting of one of us (Sivaraman Nair, J.) bad occasion to consider the same question in the decision reported in Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1987 (1) KLT 651 . That decision was based almost entirely on the observations contained in Athani Municipality v. Labour Court, Hugli. AIR 1969 SC 1335. In two earlier cases before the Supreme Court, the question which was considered was whether a Commissioner appointed under the Commission of Enquiries Act, or the Registrar functioning under the Cooperative Societies Act, would be "courts" under the Contempt of Courts Act. It is true, that the Supreme Court observed, that