RAI HARENDRANATH CHAUDHURI Vs. DAULATMANI CHAUDHURANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revision cases raise the question whether Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act will apply to appeals under section 27 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act of 1949. The facts of these three cases which are not disputed are these:

(2.) On 29-9-1956, the Thika Tenancy Controller made an order of ejectment against the opposite parties and an appeal against that Order was filed in the court of the District Judge, 24-Parganas, on 20-11-1956. Under Section 27 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act the period of limitation for filing an appeal against an order of the Controller is 30 days from the date of the order. In all these three cases the opposite parties filed applications for extension of time under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act on the allegation that though the order had been passed by the Controller on 29-9-1956, the opposite parties on account of physical infirmities of various descriptions, came to know of the order on 5-11-1956. They made an application for an urgent copy o the order on 9-11-1956, and filed the appeals before the District Judge on 10-11-1956. The office of the District Judge made a report that all these appeals were time barred by 12 days. The learned District Judge, however, upon the applications filed by the opposite parties, held that the opposite parties had made out a sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and accordingly condoned the delay and ordered the appeals to be registered. Against that order the landlord petitioner has obtained the present rules.

(3.) On behalf of the landlord petitioner it has been contended that Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act does not apply to appeals under Section 27 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act of 1949. The question will have to be decided upon a proper interpretation of section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act. The scope of section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation. Act. has in recent years, been very Carefully analysed, in the cases of Province of Bengal v. Amulya Dhone Addy, 54 CWN 297; (AIR 1950 Cal 336)(A) & Bijan Lata Basak v. Bhudhar Chandra Das, both of which are Bench decisions, which are binding on us. In the case of Province of Bengal v. Amulya Dhone Addy (A), Mitter, J. pointed out that section 29 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act applies only to two classes of appeals: