Skip to content


T.E. Ramanatha Rao Vs. K. Janardhanan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P. Sr. No. 55330 of 1980 and C.M.P. Sr. No. 80098 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1983Mad144
ActsTamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 - Sections 25(2)
AppellantT.E. Ramanatha Rao
RespondentK. Janardhanan
Advocates:T.S. Subramaniam, Adv.
Excerpt:
- - provided that the high court may, in its discretion, allow further time not exceeding one month for the filing of any such application, if it is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring the application within the time specified in this sub-section. 4 of the limitation act, the revision petition should have been filed on the day when the court reopened on 16-6-1980, when it would be well within time......of expiration of the period of limitation during the vacation. the power of this court in the instant case is restricted and not unlimited, s in the case of appeals under the civil p. c., by the application of s. 5 of the limitation act, the court can condone any delay for sufficient reasons. in the instant case, the last date of filing the revision was on 15-5-1980 and the revision not having been filed on the date of the reopening of the court, but having been filed only on 9-7-1980, there is no discretion left to the court, but to reject it on the ground that it is barred by limitation. the petitions are accordingly rejected as not maintainable. 4. order accordingly.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. In this case, the question of maintainability of this petition arises. the civil revision petition has been filed under S. 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the appellate judgment dated 22-1-1980 of the Second Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, made in H. R. A. No. 315 of 1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate judgment was rendered on 22-1-1980, that he applied for a copy on 24-1-1980, that stamps were deposited on 14-2-1980, that the copy was ready on 17-4-1980 and that the copy was actually delivered on 18-4-1980. According to the calculation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the last date for filing the civil revision petition under S. 25 of the Act was 15-5-1980 which would fall during the summer holidays of this court which started from 1-5-1980 and the court reopened on 16-6-1980. The revision petition was not filed on the date of reopening of this court namely, 16-6-1980, but was actually filed on 9-7-1980. According to the learned counsel, as the thirty days' period fell during the vacation of the High Court, he could file the revision on the day when the court reopened after summer vacation on 16-6-1980 under S. 4 of the Limitation Act, and under the proviso to sub-sec (2) of S. 25 of the Act, the High Court in its discretion could allow a further period of thirty days from 16-6-1980, and if so reckoned the civil revision petition and the miscellaneous petition for condoning the delay filed on 9-7-1980 are maintainable.

2. S. 25(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, reads as follows-

'S. 25(2) : Every application to the High Court for the exercise of its power under sub-sec (1) shall be preferred within one month from the date on which the order or proceeding to which the application relates in communicated to the applicant;

Provided that the High Court may, in its discretion, allow further time not exceeding one month for the filing of any such application, if it is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring the application within the time specified in this sub-section.'

3. From the above said provision of law, it is clear that every revision petition under this Act shall be preferred to the High Court within one month from the date on which the order was communicated to the petitioner, and the proviso empowers the High Court, in its discretion, to allow a further time not exceeding one month for filing of any such application. In this case, the limitation of time for filing the revision petition expired on 15-5-1980 which was during the summer vacation of this Court. Therefore, under S. 4 of the Limitation Act, the revision petition should have been filed on the day when the court reopened on 16-6-1980, when it would be well within time. This, however, will not have the effect of extending the period of thirty days limitation up to 16-6-1980 as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the petitioner will have the double advantage of extended period of limitation for filing the revision petition on the day when the court reopened after summer vacation under S. 4 of the Limitation Act when the period of limitation expired during the vacation of the court and again filing a petition under the proviso to sub-sec (2) of S. 25 of the Act seeking the discretionary power of this court to allow a further time of one month from the date of reopening of the court after vacation. This is not contemplated by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960. It is settled law that what is not permitted to be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. If the original period of limitation expires during the vacation and if the revision petition has not been filed on the day when the court reopened under S. 4 of the Limitation Act as in the instant case, the discretionary period of one month as provided for in the proviso to S. 25(2) of the Act will start running from the original date of expiration of the period of limitation during the vacation. The power of this court in the instant case is restricted and not unlimited, s in the case of appeals under the Civil P. C., by the application of S. 5 of the Limitation Act, the court can condone any delay for sufficient reasons. In the instant case, the last date of filing the revision was on 15-5-1980 and the revision not having been filed on the date of the reopening of the court, but having been filed only on 9-7-1980, there is no discretion left to the Court, but to reject it on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The petitions are accordingly rejected as not maintainable.

4. Order accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //