M K ABU BUCKER Vs. B MOIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, in I.A. No. 2787 of 1954 dismissing the application of the revision petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) The appeal before the Sub-Judge was against the order of the Rent Controller, under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XV of 1946. The appeal filed was admittedly barred having been filed 29 days after the expiry of the period prescribed. The petitioner invoked section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. The Subordinate Judge without going into the merits of the application rejected the same holding that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be made applicable to appeals under special enactments.

(3.) The sole point to be considered here is whether section 5 of the Limitation Act could be invoked by the petitioner. It must be pointed out that section 5 under which the Court can execuse delay is not one of those provisions the application of which has been extended by the Indian Limitation Act. Section 29 (2) (b) of the Limitation Act is clear on this point. Barring those sections of the Indian Limitation Act as have been mentioned in section 29 (2) (b), no other section would apply to an appeal or application under any special enactment. The words 'the remaining provisions of this Act shall not apply' would mean that they are not to apply proprio vigore that is to say, that if they are to apply there must be a provision in the special Act applying any of such remaining provisions. Further the Legislature has been at pains to apply only particular provisions of the Limitation Act enumerated in section 29 (2) (a) of the Act, and excluding the application of other provisions to special laws. To apply the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, where section 29 (2) (b) expressly precludes the application thereof would be against all established canons of construction of Statutes. I, therefore, hold that the view taken by the Subordinate Judge is correct and this revision should be dismissed. Revision dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 30. Revision dismissed.