RANCHODDAS Vs. GUPTA BRASS STORES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that falls for determination in the present petition is whether provisions of S. 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 ("the Act of 1963" for short) apply to the application for review by the interested party under Clause 21(2-a) of the C. P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 ("the HRC Order" for short).

(2.) It is unnecessary to burden the judgment with the facts. Admitted position is that if the period spent in obtaining certified copy of the impugned order is excluded the application is within time and not otherwise. The Appellate Authority rejected the application for review as time barred on a view that unlike Clause 21 (1) and (1-a) relating to appeal neither filing of the certified copy of the judgment complained of is mandatory nor time taken in obtaining the copy is specifically excluded in case of review under Clause 21 (2-a).

(3.) It is apparent that the impact of the Act of 1963 on the HRC order has not been considered by the Appellate Authority. Relevant provisions are Ss. 12(2) and 29(2) of the Act of 1963. Section 12(2) permits exclusion of time required to obtain certified copy of the order challenged in computing the limitation for "an appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review of a judgment." Section 29(2) provides that "for the purpose of determining any special or local law. the provisions contained in Ss. 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law." The word "expressly" used in the later section is significant. That the HRC Order is a "special or local law" and, therefore, S. 29 (2) makes applicable provision of S. 12(2) to it, admits of no serious debate. In this connection useful reference may also be made to the decision of the Court in Dagdulal v. State (1981 Mah LJ 49). What is canvassed pefore me is that specially providing for filing of certified copy and exclusion of time spent in obtaining the same in case of appeal and not providing so in case of review in the very same clause amounts to express exclusion of S. 12 of the Act of 1963. I find it difficult to accept this contention. for applicability of S. 12 it is not at all necessary that the filing of the certified copy of the order complained of should be mandatory. Absence of requirement of filing certified copy is privilege conferred on the applicant and has nothing to do with the positive directions contained in S. 12(2) . This position is judicially crystallized by India Courts. In the case of the Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s/ Madanalal Dan & Sons it is observed (at p. 526) :