Kuppachiammal and Another vs Lakshmiammal

Gokulakrishnan J.

The revision petition arises out of an order passed by the learned District Munsif, Tiruchinopoly, in Interlocutory Application No. 1267 of 1973.

Interlocutory Application No. 1267 of 1973 is an application by the Petitioners herein u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act to excuse the delay of 39

days in filing the petition u/s 15 of Act XXXVII of 1972. Act XXXVIII 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 de 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 u/s 15 was filed on 23rd July 1973, the said petition

was not numbered. So, the Petitioners herein filed Interlocutory Application No. 1267 of 1973, u/s 5 of the Limitation Act to excuse the delay in

filing the petition u/s 15 of the Act XXXVIII of 1972. The Court below holding that the Act itself If 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 u/s 15

was to be entertained and also that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the proceedings arising under Act XXXVIII of 1972

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 Section 5 of Limitation Act is applicable to the proceedings arising under Act XXXVIII of 1972 and

that the same enactment (Act XXXVIII of 1972) cannot be considered as a complete Code. It is clear from the decisions in Ramakrishnan v.

Kanda sami Thevar (1974) T.N.L.J. 378 and Masilamani Chettiar v. Chandra Mudalia (1974) T.N.L.J. 471 that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is

applicable to Act XXXVIII of 1972.

On behalf of the Respondent it is contended that even though he 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 u/s 15 of the Act XXXVIIII of 1972 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 u/s 15 of Act XXXVIII of 1972 u/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, u/s 5 of the Limitation Act in matters arising under Act XXXVIII of 1972. There will be no order as to

costs.