Kuppachiammal alias Sri Rangammal and another vs Lakshiammal

Gokulakrishnan, J.—This revision petition arises out of an order passed by the learned District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, in I.A. No. 1267 of

1973. I.A. No. 1267/73 is an application by the petitioners herein under S. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act to excuse the delay of 39 days in filing

the petition under S. 15 of the Act 38 of 1972. Act 38 of 1972 was published on 15th December, 1972 and any scaling down of the debt in

respect of the decree passed before the publication must be made within six months from the date of publication i.e., on or before 15th June,

1973. Admittedly, the petition was filed on 23rd July, 1973. Inasmuch as the application under S. 15 was filed on 23rd July, 1973, the said

petition was not numbered. So, the petitioners herein filed I.A. No. 1267/73 under S. 5 of the Limitation Act to excuse the delay in filing the

petition under S. 15 of Act 38/72. The Court below holding that the Act itself provides the period of limitation within which time an application of

this nature has to be filed and since serious inroads are created in the decree obtained by the creditor if an application under S. 15 has to be

entertained and also that S. 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the proceedings arising under Act 38/72, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved

by the said decision, the petitioners have preferred the above Civil Revision Petition. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that S. 5. Limitation

Act is applicable to the proceedings arising under Act 38/72 and that the same enactment (Act 38/72) cannot be considered as a complete Code.

It is clear from the decisions in V. Ramakrishnan v. Kandasami Thevar 1974 T.N.L.J. 378 and Masilamani Chettiar v. A.P. Ramachandra

Mudaliar 1974 T.N.L.J. 471 that S. 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to Act 38/72.

On behalf of the respondent it is contended that even though they cannot uphold the decision of the court below in view of the decisions cited

above, the petitioners have no right to file a civil revision petition since their remedy is only by way of an appeal to the lower appellate court. No

doubt, against an order under S. 15 of the Act 38/72, an appeal only is competent. But as far as the present case is concerned, the revision has

been filed against the order refusing to excuse the delay in filing the application under S. 15 of Act 38/72 under S. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. If

that be so, a revision only is maintainable. Hence I do not find any substance in the argument to the effect that revision will not lie.

Taking into consideration the decisions referred to above, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The result being that the Court has ample

jurisdiction to excuse the delay, if any, under S. 5 of the Limitation Act in matters arising under Act 38 of 1972. There will be no order as to costs.