Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Mukri Gopalan v. Chappilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker
AIR 1995 SC 2272, [1995] 5 SCC 5
JUDGES: S.B. Majmudar and Faizan Uddin
Date of Decision: 02-07-1995
FACTS:-
In a suit of eviction by the respondent, the Rent Control Board passed an order for possession against the appellant. In appeal, accompanied with the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal under S.18 of the Rent Act was dismissed on the ground ‘barred by limitation’ and took the view that being not a court but a persona designata it has no power to condone the delay in filing appeal by invoking the provisions contained in S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court confirmed the order of appellate authority. Thus, appeal was presented before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:-
Whether the appellate authority constituted under S. 18, Kerala Rent Act has power to condone the delay in the filing of appeal before it?
JUDGMENT:-
The Supreme Court, after observing all the relevant statutory provisions and the notification issued there under, has recognised that the appellate authorities as constituted under S.18, being recognised as the District Judges, they constituted a class and cannot be considered to be persona desingata. It was held that appellate authority under said Rent Act functions as a court and the period of limitation prescribed therein under S.18 governing appeals will be computed keeping in view the provisions of S. 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act. Such proceedings will attract S. 29(2) of the Limitation Act and consequently S.5 of the Limitation Act would also be applicable to such proceedings. Appellate authority will have ample jurisdiction to consider the question as to the condone delay in filing appeals on sufficient cause for such delay.
The power under that special enactment had been conferred on the regular civil courts. The appellate authority therein was a court in the normal hierarchy of courts, set up by the State. The Supreme Court, further, held that the powers under the special law were exercised by the civil court but not as persona designata and such law did not exclude the application under Ss. 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the provisions of S. 29(2) of the Limitation Act were also applicable to the proceedings arising under the special law.
Hence, in such facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and the trial court.
HELD:-
The Supreme Court held, that the appellate authority set up by the state possess all power of the civil court to condone the delay in filing appeal and not to act as persona designate.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
