Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. At this juncture, it will be necessary to consider the deci-

sion of the Apex Court in the case of Vidyacharan Shukla (supra). The Apex Court dealt with the Article 156 of the Limitation Act of 1908 which provided that the period of limitation of appeal "under the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 to a High Court" will be 90 days except in cases provided for by the Articles 151 and 153. The issue before the Apex Court was as regards the period of limitation of an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 ( here-

8. Thereafter, in paragraph 16, Subba Rao,J. proceeded to ob-

serve as under:

"Article 156 of the First Schedule in the Limitation Act says that to an appeal under the Code of Civil Proced-

ure, 1908, to a High Court, except in the cases provided for by Article 151 and Article 153, the peri-

od of limitation is 90 days from the date of the decree or order appealed from; and Article 151 referred to in Article 156 provides for an appeal against a decree or order of any of the High Courts of Judicature at Fort William, Madras and Bombay or of the High Court of Punjab in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. What does the expression "under the Code of Civil Proced- ure" in Article 156 of the First Schedule to the Limita- tion Act connote? Does it mean that a right of appeal shall be conferred under the Code of Civil Procedure, or does it mean that the procedure prescribed by the said Code shall apply to such an appeal? A comparis- on of the terms of Article 156 and Article 151 indic- ates that the emphasis is more upon the procedure ap- plicable to an appeal than on the right of appeal con- ferred under an Act. The heading of the first column in the First Schedule to the Limitation Act is "Descrip- tion of appeal". The phraseology used in Article 156 describes the nature of the appeal in respect of which a particular period of limitation is prescribed. It does not refer to a right conferred under the Code of Civil Procedure, but only describes the appeal with refer- ence to the procedure applicable thereto. Though the word "under" may support the contrary view, the ref-

erence to Article 151 therein detracts from it. Article 151 is an exception to Article 156 indicating thereby that but for the exception, Article 156 will apply to an appeal covered by Article 151 that is to say, an appeal under Article 151 is deemed to be an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure. Though a right of appeal is conferred under the Letters Patent, it is deemed to be an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, be- cause the Code of Civil Procedure governs the said ap- peal. As Rajamannar, C.J., observed in Kandaswami Pillai v. Kannappa Chetty "It is well established that the Limitation Act and the Code are to be read together, because both are stat-

(Emphasis added)

10. Ayyengar, J. for himself and for B.P.Sinha C.J. in paragraph 6 held thus:

"The argument was that though the right of appeal in the case before us was conferred by Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act and it was by vir- tue thereof that the appeal was filed by the respondent to the High Court; it was still an appeal "under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to a High Court". For this submission learned counsel relied principally on two decisions -- one of the Calcutta and the other of the Madras High Court, and they undoubtedly support him. In Aga Mohd. Hamdani v. Cohen 3 as; well as in Ramasami Pillai v. Deputy Collector of Madura 4 which followed it, the Court held that to attract this article it was not necessary in order to be an "appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure" within the meaning of those words in Article 156, that the right to prefer the appeal should be conferred by the Code of Civil Procedure but that it was suffi- cient if the Procedure for the filing of the appeal and the powers of the Court for dealing with the appeal were governed by that Code. For adopting this construction the Court relied on the reference in Article 156 to Article 151. Article 151 dealt with ap- peals to the High Court from judgments rendered on the original side of that Court. The right to prefer these appeals was conferred by the Letters Patent con- stituting the respective High Courts, and not by the Code of Civil Procedure, though the Code of Civil Pro- cedure governed the procedure, jurisdiction and powers of the Court in dealing with the appeals so filed. There would have been need therefore to except cases covered by Article 151 only if the words "under the Code of Civil Procedure" were understood as meaning appeals for the disposal of which the provi- sions of the Code of Civil Procedure was made applic- able. We might mention that besides the Calcutta and the Madras High Courts a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court also has in Dropadi v. Hira Lal 5 adopted a similar construction of the Article, the learned Judges, pointing out that several Indian enactments among them the Indian Succession Act, the Probate and Ad- ministration Act, the Land Acquisition Act and the Pro- vincial Insolvency Act proceeded on the basis of a le-