Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.49 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
J. Thansiama vs State Of Mizoram & Ors on 8 September, 2015
9. What, however, would require a pointed notice is that
the Notification dated 14.03.1966 issued by the Governer of
Assam excluding the operation of the Limitation Act from the
tribal areas of the State of Assam ceased to be applicable to
the Mizo District once the areas therein no long formed a
part of the tribal areas of Assam and, instead, became a part
of the tribal areas of the Union Territory of Mizoram with
effect from 21.01.1972. The further developments(historical,
geographical and constitutional), namely, the
exclusion/omission of the Mizo District even from the tribal
areas of the Union Territory of Mizoram; the dissolution of
the Mizo District Council and the addition of Pawai, Lakher
and Chakma Districts to part III of Para 20 of the Sixth
Schedule as the tribal areas of the Union Territory of
6
Mizoram, of which all developments had occurred subsequent to
the creation of the Union Territory of Mizoram, would further
fortify the above position. The aforesaid facts would
demonstrate that the Notification dated 14.03.1966 ex facie
would not apply to the arears within the erstwhile Mizo
District of the State of Assam once the said areas ceased to
be so and came to comprise the Union Territory of Mizoram
with effect from 21.1.1972 by virtue of Section 6 of the
Reorganisation Act.”
The judgment of this Court in J. Thansiama vs. State of
Mizoram & Others(supra) makes it absolutely clear that the
Limitation Act applied in the State of Mizoram with effect from
21.01.1972.
Shri Popat Bahiru Govardhane vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 25 January, 2012
The High Court rightly found that the question to be decided
in the suit and in the application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 was, whether the delay in filing the Money
Suit for damages could be condoned by filing an application for
condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The High Court held rightly that the Limitation Act was
applicable in the State of Mizoram and that a perusal of Section 5
of the Limitation Act, 1963 clearly showed that Section 5 did not
apply to suits, but only to appeals and to applications except for
applications under Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code.
As held by this Court in Popat Bahiru Govardhane & Others vs.
Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. reported in (2013) 10 SCC
765, on which reliance has been placed by the High Court, it is
settled law that limitation may harshly affect a particular party,
but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so
prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of
limitation on equitable grounds, even though the statutory
5
provision may sometimes cause hardship or inconvenience to a
particular party. The Court has no choice, but to enforce it giving
full effect to the same.
Section 6 in Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
The State Of Mizoram Act, 1986
1