Section 5 Of The Limitation Act Applies Only To Appeals And Applications: F Liasanga Vs Union Of India

DATE OF JUDGEMNT:
02/03/2022

BENCH:
JUSTICE MS. INDIRA BANNERJEE AND JUSTICE MS. J.K. MAHESHWARI

PARTIES:
PETITIONER: F. LIANSANGA
RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA

SUBJECT

The Supreme Court ruled that the section 5 of the Limitation Act does not have the power to condone suits. Only applications and appeals fall within the scope of this Section.

OVERVIEW

1. A monetary claim was brought in this case, demanding compensation for stones taken by officials from the petitioners' property for the development of a public road.
2. The petition was dismissed by the Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, based on the statute of limitations.
3. They later filed a new claim, coupled with a request under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963, asking for a 325-day postponement in bringing the original suit to be excused.
4. The Trial Court decided to grant this petition.
5. The Gauhati High Court overturned the judgement, ruling that the Limitation Act applied in Mizoram and that Section 5 did not extend to cases, but only to challenges and petitions, apart from petitions under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code.

LEGAL PROVISION

Popat Bahiru Govardhane & Others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, in J. Thansiama vs. State of Mizoram

ISSUES

Whether there is any power to condone delay under S.5 of the limitation act?

JUDGEMENTS

1. As the High Court ruled in Popat Bahiru Govardhane & Others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr, Mrr, upon which High Court relied, it was written into law that while restriction may have been rudely linked to a specific party, it was also be meant to apply with strictness when the law so required.
2. Even if the statutory restriction had occasionally caused difficulty or trouble to a specific party, the Court has no ability to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.
3. The Court has no choice but to uphold it and give it full force. The court further cited the ruling in J. Thansiama vs. State of Mizoram, noting that the Limitation Act took effect in Mizoram on January 21, 1972.
4. The court had made the following observation and The High Court correctly held that the Limitation Act applied in the State of Mizoram, and that a reading of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 clearly demonstrated that Section 5 did not extend to suits, and only to arguments and applications, except for applications under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code.
5. Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 applies only to hearings and petitions, save for those filed under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code - Limitation may have a devastating effect on a specific party, but it must be enforced with utmost rigour where the statute requires it. Even if the statutory restriction may occasionally cause hardship or trouble to a particular party, the Court has no ability to extend the period of limitation on equitable reasons. The Court has no choice but to uphold it and give it full effect.

CONCLUSION

Petition was rejected against a Gauhati High Court judgement holding that the Limitation Act applied in Mizoram and that Section 5 did not extend to lawsuits, but only to appeals and applications, apart from applications under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code. The High Court correctly struck aside the Trial Court's order, stating that it could not have tolerated the 325-day postponement in bringing the Money Suit.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement