Union Of India vs Suresh Jayantilal Thanawala And Others on 17 January, 2000
Perusal of provisions of various sections of the Limitation Act makes it clear that the Legislature has made a clear distinction between a suit and an application and an appeal. There are some provisions which apply to suits and there are some provisions which apply only to appeals or applications. In my opinion, as section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of a suit, by virtue of the provisions of section 2 to section 29 it cannot be made applicable to a suit. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that the order of the Collector is contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Muhammed Masud Muhammad Mahsin Bhaiji, . Firstly, even if it is assumed that the order of the Collector is contrary to the judgment of this Court that will not make the judgment rum est. Failure to follow the law laid down by the Court of record would make the judgment illegal and not non est. It is further to be seen here that the order of the Collector in the present case was made in June, 1995, whereas the Revision was decided by the State Government in June, 1996 and the case of Muhammed Masud referred to above was decided by this Court in September, 1996.