Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. From the rival contentions raised before me, therefore, it is quite obvious that the main controversy involved in this appeal relates to application of Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963 to the present application which is filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as under:

"Description of application.

Period of limitation.

Time from which period begins to run.

Part II - Other applications.

137. Any other application forwhich no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in thia Division.

"10. It appears to us that the view expressed by this Court in those cases must be held to be applicable, even when considering the scope and applicability of Article 137 in the new Limitation Act of 3963. The language of Article 137 is only slightly different from that of the earlier Article 181 inasmuch as, when prescribing the three years' period of limitation, the first column giving the description of the application reads as "any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this division." In fact, the addition of the word "other" between the words "any" and "application" would indicate that the legislature wanted to make it clear that the principle of interpretation of Article 181 on the basis of ejusdem generis should be applied when interpreting the new Article 137. This word "other" implies a reference to earlier articles, and, consequently, in interpreting this Article, regard must be had to the provisions contained in all the earlier articles. The other articles in the third division to the schedule refer to applications under the Civil P. C. with the exception of applications under the Arbitration Act and also in two cases applications under the Cr. P. C. The effect of introduction in the third division of the schedule of reference to applications under the Arbitration Act in the old Limitation Act has already been considered by this Court in the case of Sha Mulchand & Co. Ltd, (supra). We think that, on the same principle, it must be held that even the further alteration made in the articles contained in the third division of the schedule to the new Limitation Act containing reference to applications under the Cr. P. C. cannot be held to have materially altered the scope of the residuary Article 137 which deals with other applications. It is not possible to hold that intention of the legislature was to drastically alter the scope of this article so as to include within it all applications, irrespective of the fact whether they had any reference to the Civil P. C.

"It is, therefore, clear that the legal position has changed after the commencement of the new Limitation Act and the provisions of the Limitation Act will be attracted to an application under the Special Act, such as the Arbitration Act. The matter is no longer in dispute about Article 137 applying to any applications. An application under Section 20 of the Act is also an application within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the 'applicant' therein is a 'petitioner' within the meaning of Section 2(a)(i) of the Limitation Act. That being the position, Article 137, which is a residuary article, will apply to an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act and the period will be three years from the time the right to apply accrues."

(Underlining is mine) In this decision in the clearest terms it is laid down by the Supreme Court that there was no limitation prescribed for filing an application under Section 20 of the, Arbitration Act under the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, or in the Limitation Act, 1963. Article 181 of the former did not govern such an application, but the period of 3 years prescribed in Article 137 may be made applicable to the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act- If these observations of the Supreme Court are read in the context of the amended provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 as well as the observations of the Supreme Court in para 11 of the decision in Town Municipal Council, Athani's case and para 4 of the decision in Nitya-nand's case (cit. supra} it is quite obvious that a change has been brought out in this behalf by the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, in my opinion, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, namely, Article 137, which is a residue Article, will obviously apply to an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, and, therefore, the period of limitation for filing such an application will be three years from the time the right to apply accrues.