GANESAN Vs. THE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point for consideration in this Writ Appeal is whether the Commissioner under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] is a Court within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) An application was filed by the Appellant/Petitioner under Section 63 of the Act before the Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Department Sivagangai (Second Respondent herein) in O.A.No.7 of 2008 to declare the Petitioner as the 'Ambalathaar' for the village. By order dated 31.10.2010 the Second Respondent allowed the application in O.A.No.7 of 2008 declaring the Appellant as the 'Ambalathaar' for the village. Since the Third Respondent was not a party to O.A.No.7 of 2008 also claiming to be the 'Ambalathaar' for the same village filed an Appeal aggrieved by the order of the Second Respondent dated 31.10.2010 under Section 69(1) of the Act along with an application to condone the delay of 266 days in filing the Appeal. Under Section 69(1) of the Act the Appeal against the order of the Second Respondent ought to have been filed before the First Respondent within sixty days from the date of the publication of the order or of the receipt thereof as the case may be. Section 69 of the Act reads as follows:

(3.) The reason given by the Third Respondent for condonation of delay is that he was ill and could not engage an Advocate. The relevant portion of his affidavit is extracted below: 3. I submit that after obtaining the order from the office of the Joint Commissioner I was not able to instruct my counsel at Chennai to prefer the appeal since I was ill for 7-8 months. I was not able to travel to Chennai to instruct my counsel. Hence there occurred a delay of 266 days. The said delay is neither willful nor wanton but for the above said reason.