MORI RIBA Vs. YOMKAR RIBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. K. Ete, learned Counsel for the applicant, and Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the opposite party.

(2.) By making this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant, who was not (sic) party to the PIL No. 3 (AP)/2008 [Shri Yomkar Riba v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors.], has sought for condoning the delay of a period of 13 days in filing toe petition seeking review if the judgment and order, dated 10.11.2008. passed in PIL NO. 3(AP)2008.

(3.) Notwithstanding, however, the fact that the applicant hen made this application seeking condonation of delay, it is submitted, on behalf of the applicant, that as far as exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned, the same is not subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act, in the sense that Article 124 of the Limitation Act, which proscribes, for review, a period of 30 days from the date of the decree or order of courts other than the Supreme Court, does not apply to a writ proceeding or review of on order paused therein. It is submitted that the proscribed period of 30 days in not applicable to a writ proceeding under Article 226 inasmuch by the review by the High Court of its own order, passed under Article 226, is in exercise of its inherent powers, which every court of plenary jurisdiction has. In support of his submissions, Mr. Ete relies on a decision of this Court in Sri Kanak Chandra Sarma v. The Board of Secondary Education, Assam. Guwahati and Ors., 1995 2 GauLT 52, wherein a learned single Judge of this Court, has taken the view that Article 124 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes the period of limitation for making an application for review of an order, does not apply to the High Court if an application is made to the High Court seeking review of its order passed in exercise of the powers under Article 226.