Limitation Act, 1963 - Applicability of Limitation Act to proceedings under the enactments other than the Code of Civil Procedure, i.e. under some special or local law.

Very recently, the Hon'ble Patna High Court in Shree Durga Rice Mill vs State of Bihar has discussed in detail about the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings under the enactments other than the Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant portion of the judgement is extracted herein under;

"I do not need to give more time on the question whether the Limitation Act will apply to the proceedings before the tribunals/authorities which are not “Court” within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the present case, I am dealing with the appeals preferred before the High Court. There cannot be and there is no dispute that the Limitation Act does apply to the appeals preferred before the High Court. The question is whether the Limitation Act will apply to the appeals filed before the High Court under the enactment other than the Code of Civil Procedure, i.e. under some special or local law. 

It is well understood that the Limitation Act is a procedural law to be read with the Code of Civil Procedure and will apply to the proceedings filed before the Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. However, it is not confined exclusively to the proceeding filed under the Code of Civil Procedure. There is intrinsic evidence within the Act itself which will satisfy any trained mind that it can apply to the proceedings other than the proceedings filed under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Articles 114 and 115 in the Second Division of the Schedule to the Limitation Act provides for limitation for appeals under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Similarly, Section 29(2) of Limitation Act, in given circumstances, permits the application of the Limitation Act (Sections 4 to 24) to the appeals or the applications made under special or local laws subject to the conditions provided therein. Thus, the application of the Limitation Act is not absolutely barred in case of the appeals or the applications made under the Acts other than the Code of Civil Procedure. The words “They are not expressly excluded by such special or local law” connote that but for such express exclusion the Limitation Act (Sections 4 to 24) would apply to the appeals or applications preferred or filed under a special or local law.

In the matter of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors. [ AIR 2010 SC 2061], the Hon‟ble Court made note of the limitation of 60 days provided for appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of the tribunal under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and further period of 60 days allowed under the proviso thereto. The Hon‟ble Court culled the legislative intention of allowing the party to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court in not more than 120 days from the date of order. The Hon‟ble Court held that Section 5 read with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act was not attracted.

Much stress has been laid on the words “period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule”, meaning thereby that except where the provisions are specifically excluded, Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act will apply to the appeals and applications only if the limitation provided under such special or local law is different from the one prescribed by the Schedule. This provision has been extended to the cases where the Schedule does not provide for any limitation at all. Should the application of Limitation Act (Sections 4 to 24) to the appeals or applications preferred or made under some special or local law be dependent on a fortuitous circumstance of the period of limitation provided in such special or local law. If the period of limitation is different from the one provided by the Schedule or where no limitation is provided by the Schedule, the Limitation Act (Sections 4 to 24) will apply. If the limitation prescribed is the same as the one prescribed by the Schedule, the Limitation Act (Sections 4 to 24) will not apply. Does it not amount to discrimination based on a fortuitous circumstance of the period of limitation prescribed under the concerned law. Could it be the intention of the Parliament or the State Legislature to discriminate the proceedings in respect of the application of the Limitation Act (Sections 4 to 24). I do not suppose so. I am unable to subscribe to the view that for application of the Limitation Act (Sections 4 to 24) by operation of Section 29(2) of the Act, the limitation provided under the special or local law has to be different from the limitation prescribed in the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Either the Limitation Act applies or it does not apply. If it applies it will apply irrespective of the period of limitation prescribed in such special or local law. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act should not be construed in a manner to create discrimination from proceeding to proceeding under special or local law based on the period of limitation prescribed for such proceedings.

The intention behind Section 29(2) of the Act, as I understand, is simple and uncomplicated. It should be read to mean that in case a special or local law provides for an appeal or application to a Court and also provides for limitation for such appeal or application, such special law shall prevail and the limitation prescribed by the special law be read in the Schedule to the Limitation Act. In other words, if the limitation provided under the special or local law is the same as that provided in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, the Schedule has to be read as it is. It does not need to be read in any other manner. In case the limitation prescribed under the special or local law is different from the one provided in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, the Court must read the limitation prescribed under the special or local enactment in the Schedule for the purpose of the appeal or application under the special or local enactment. The intention is to respect the provisions contained in the special or local law. If after providing the period of limitation, the Limitation Act (Sections 4 to 24) is expressly excluded, the legislative intention must be respected and the said provisions shall not apply. But if no such intention is expressed, the Limitation Act (Sections 4 to 24) shall apply. Further, for applying the Limitation Act (Sections 4 to 24) by operation of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, the condition precedent is that the Limitation Act as such applies to the proceedings in question i.e., if the appeal or the application in question lies before the Tribunal or the Authority to which (not being a Court) the Limitation Act does not apply, the same cannot be pressed into service by invoking Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. However, the Limitation Act does apply to the proceedings before the Courts. It will, therefore, apply to the appeals or applications preferred or made before the Court under any special or local law (Sections 4 to 24) unless the application of any of the said sections is expressly barred. One must not forget that Section 29 of the Limitation Act is the saving provision and not a substantive provision."