LexM/S. INDIA HOUSE versus KISHAN N. LALWANI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D MIS. INDIA HOUSE v. KISHAN N. LALWANI DECEMBER 18, 2002 [R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] Tamil Nadu Building (lease & Rent) Control Act, 1960; Section 25(2) Proviso: Period of limitation-Extension of-Held, Discretionary power of the Court could be exercised to condone delay in filing petition 1fnder Section 5 limitation Act, 1963 when such delay does not exceed one month over and above the period liable to be excluded as time requisite for obtaining certified copy of order appealed against. limitation Act, 1963; Sections 12(2) & 29(2): Exclusion of time lost in obtaining copy of the order/judgment-Benefit under Section 12(2), limitation Act-Applicability of-Held. it is statutory obligation of the Court to extend such benefits to exclude lime lost in E obtaining copy of the order/judgment impugned-Such benefit is also applicable while counting period of limitation prescribed under any special law/local law-Time lost in obtaining copy liable to be excluded though application for copy was not made within prescribed period of limitation. Respondent filed two revision petitions against appellate order of the F High Court on 25.9.2001. Respondent applied for certified copy belatedly on 9.11.2001 after expiry of limitation period for filing revision petition as per provision of Law under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act and the same was received on 24.12.2001. High Court under its discretionary power u/s 29 of the Act condoned the delay in. filing revision petition on sufficient cause shown by the respondent and also considered G exclusion of time lost in obtaining copy of the order by extending benefits of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act. Hence these appeals. H Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: I.I. It is well-settled that by virtue ofsub-section (2) of Section 522 INDIA HOUSE v. KISHANN. LALWANI 523 29 of the Limitation Act the provisions of Section 12 are applicable for A computing the period of limitation prescribed by any special or local law. The period of limitation statutorily prescribed has to be strictly adhered to and cannot he relaxed or departed from for equitable considerations. At the same time full effect should also be given to those provisions which permit extension or relaxation in computing period of limitation as contained in Section 12 of B the Act. The underlying purpose of these provisions is to enable a litigant seeking enforcement of his right to any remedy to do so effectively and harsh prescription of time-bar not unduly interfering with the exercise of statutory rights and remedies and Section I 2 has always been liberally interpreted. 1526-C-E( D.P. Mishra v. Kamal Narayan Sharma and Anr., 11970( 2 SCC 369 and Malojirao Narsinghrao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 119691 2 SCC 723, relied on. c 1.2. The time requisite for obtaining a copy of the impugned decree, sentence or order has been held liable to be excluded from computing the D period of limitation although such copy may not necessarily be required to he filed along with appeal, application or memo of representation or review. Yet to make up one's mind for pursuing the next remedy, for obtaining legal opinion and for appropriately drafting the petition by finding out the grounds therefor the litigant must be armed with such copy. Without the authentic E copy being available the remedy in the higher forum or subsequent jurisdiction may be rendered a farce. No distinc_tion is drawn between decrees or orders pronounced on the original side or the appellate or revisional side. No application is required to be made seeking the benefit of Section 12 of Limitation Act; it is the statutory obligation of the Court to extend the benefit where available. The language of sub-section (2) of Section 12 is couched in F a form mandating the time requisite for obtaining the copy being excluded from computing the period of limitation. 1526-E, 527-A, 526-F', GI 1.3. Depending on the facts and circumstances ofa given case, the Court may be called upon to exercise its discretionary power to condone the delay G occasioned by the time lost either before applying for certified copy or after the delivery thereof. There is no rider or an additional qualification in the language of sub-section (2) of Section 12 which the Legislature itself has chosen not to provide and thereby scuttle the operation of Section 12(2). 1527-E; 528-FJ Murlidhar Shrini
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.