KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM versus T. P. K. K. AMSOM AND BESOM, KERALA

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 996 · Decided: 29-10-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

996 
A 
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIV ANDRUM 
B 
c 
D 
E 
v. 
T. P. K. K. AMSOM AND BESOM, KERALA 
October 29, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C. J., M. H. BEG AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, 1963, Article 137,-Whether confined to applications under 
the Code of Civil Procedure-Applicability to petitions under the Indian Tele-
graph Act, 1885, S. 16(5). 
The appellant cut and removed somo trees from the respondcnt'3 Ian~ for 
laying electric lines, and assessed the compensation. Later, the respondent filed 
a petition under-section 16(5) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, claiming an 
enhanced compensation. The Appellant opposed the petition contendingitthat it 
was time-barred under Article ,_137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The respondent 
contended that Article 137 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to petitions 
to' the District Judge under the Indian Telegraph Act. The District Judge dis-
missed the petition as time-barred, but in revision, the High Court set aside the 
order and remanded the matter for disposal in accordance with law. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD: (I) Article 137 will apply to an)" petition or application filed under 
any Act to a Civil Court. Tho words "any other application" under Article 137 
cannot be said on the principle of ejusdem generis to be applications under the 
Civil Procedure Code other than those mentioned in part I of the third 
division. [998 E-G, 1000 B-C] 
Nityananda M. Joshi &: Ors. v. L.T.C. of India & Ors. 
[1970] 1 SCR 396. 
applied. 
Town Municipal Council, Atlzani v. Presiding; Officer Labour Court, Hubli & 
Ors. [1970] 1 SCR 51, overruled. 
Shri Mulchand & Co. Ltd. 
~~n liquidation) v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. (1955 
SCR 351) referred to .. 
(2) Th~ District Judge under tho Telegraph Act acts as a Civil Court in 
dealing with applications under section 16 of the Telegraph Act. 
The petition 
is one contemplated by the Telegraph 
Act for judicial 
decision and is 
an 
application fallin: within the scope of Article 
137 of the 
1963 
Limitation 
Act. [1001 E-G] 
F 
National Telephone Co. Ltd. v. The Post-master-General [1913] A.C. 
546 
G 
applied. 
Kera/a State Electricity Board v. Paravathi Amma I.LR. [1973] 2 Kerala 
524 Referred to. 
Town Municipal Council Athani v. Presiding •officer Labour Court, 
Hubli 
and Ors. [19701 1 SCR 51 andi Nityananda M. Joshi & Ors. v. 
Life Insurance 
Corporation of India & Ors. [1970] 1 SCR 396 distinguishetl. 
· CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 246 of 1975. 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
3.6.1974 of the Kerala High Court in C.R.P. No. 302 of 1974) 
S. T. Desai and A. C. Puddissary for! the appellant. 
K. T. Harindranath and T. T. Kunhikanan, for the Respondent. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAY, C. J.-This appeal is by special leave from the judgment 
dated 3 June, 1974 of the High Court of Kerala. 
)
/ 
KERALA ELEC. BOARD V. T. P. K. K. AMSOM (Ray, C. J.) 997 
The respondent filed a petition under sections 10 and 16 ( 5) . of 
the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 read with section 51 of the Indian 
Electricity Act 1910 claiming compensation against the appellant. 
A 
The Kerala State Electricity Board is constituted under section 5 
of the 
Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1948. 
The Board cut and 
removed some trees standing on the property of the respondent for 
B 
the purpose of laying electric line from Calicut to Cannanore. 
The 
Board assessed the compensation at Rs. 1619.90 . 
• 
On 10 March, 1972 the respondent filed a petition before the Dis-
trict Judge, Tellicherry under section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph 
Act 1885 ~!aiming an enhanced compensation of Rs. 19,367.60. The 
Board raised several objections. 
One of the objections was that the 
petition was barred 
0by time under Article 13 7 of the Limitation Act, 
1963. The Board contended that the notice intimating the fixing of 
the compensation was served on 4 March, 1969 and therefore 
the 
petition was barred by time. 
The respondent contended that Article 
137 of the 1963 Limitation Act did not apply to applications to the 
Disuict Judge under the Indian Telegraph Act. 
The District Judge 
held that the application was governed by Article 137 of the 1963 Limi-
tation Act, and, therefore, ~he petition was filed beyond three years 
and was barred by time. 
The respondent filed revision petitions to the High Court of Kerala. 
c 
D 
The respondent also applied for condonation of delay in filing 
the 
re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.