- Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari, in F. Liansanga vs. Union of India (2018), have observed that the power of the courts to condone delay as provided in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not extend to suits. While upholding the judgement of the Guwahati HC, the Apex Court acknowledged the fact that the limitation might adversely affect the interests of a particular party but when the statute is clear and unambiguous its provisions have to be strictly construed.
- In this instance, the plaintiff sought compensation for stones being taken out of his land by authorities to build a public road. The Trial Court under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC rejected plaint on the ground of Limitation. The plaintiff filed another suit along with an application for condonation of delay of 365 days under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, which was allowed by the Trial Court. The Guwahati HC, setting aside the aforementioned order, held that Section 5 applies only to appeals and applications and not to suits.
- The essential sections, acts, and rules to this case are mentioned below:
- Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is an empowering clause designed to aid plaintiffs who have failed to do an act within the period set out in various laws enacted.
- The Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure elaborates on the rejection of plaints. In certain instances, the courts dismiss the plaints for various reasons.
- Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the extension of the limitation period, applies to all applications save those covered by Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code.
- In a similar case, Popat Bahiru Govardhane& Others V. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr., published in (2013) 10 SCC 765, the appellant's property was notified under the Land Acquisition Act, and an award was made for it. The appellant did not submit an objection application at the time but did so afterwards. The appellant then requested a certified copy of the award, which was received four days later. The Special Land Acquisition Collector denied the application because it was filed with a four-day delay. Aggrieved by the result, the appellant filed an appeal in HC, which was dismissed and led to an appeal in SC. By referring to another significant case, State of AP &Anr. v. Marri Venkaiah, in which the SC examined the precedents and rejected the appeal, the Hon'ble Court held that it is a recognized legal notion that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it must be implemented with all its rigor when the statute so specifies. It further stated that on equitable considerations, the Court has no jurisdiction to extend the statute of limitations.
- In another notable case, The Martin Burn Ltd. v. The Corporation of Calcutta and Rohitas Kumar & Ors. v. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors., it was contended by the Hon'ble Court that the outcome resulting from a statutory provision is never evil and that a court has no authority to disregard such provision in order to alleviate what it judges to be distress caused by its operation.
- The ruling in J. Thansiama vs. the State of Mizoram was also cited in this case, noting that the Limitation Act took effect in Mizoram on January 21, 1972. The bench held that "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 showed that Section 5 did not apply to suits, but only to appeals and applications, except for applications under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code."
- Therefore, the Hon'ble HC rejected the plea with respect to the aforementioned cases.
"Loved reading this piece by Sharmishta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
