High Court of Karnataka Allows Civil Revision Petition Against Rejection of Limitation Application in Land Acquisition Case. Order rejecting Section 5 Limitation Act application and dismissing petition under Order XXI Rule 105 and 106 CPC is revisable under Section 115 CPC.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a Civil Revision Petition filed by Smt. Kamal W/o Gulab Singh Rajaput against an order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saundatti, in LAC Miscellaneous No.13/2014 dated 05.04.2019. The impugned order rejected I.A. No.1 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and consequently dismissed the main petition filed under Order XXI Rule 105 and 106 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The revision petitioner sought to set aside this order. The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, heard the counsel for the petitioner and examined the office objection regarding maintainability. The court noted that the order rejecting the limitation application and dismissing the main petition constitutes a 'case decided' under Section 115 CPC, making the revision petition maintainable. The court overruled the office objection and allowed the revision petition, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on its merits, with a direction to dispose of the same within three months.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure Code - Maintainability of Revision - Section 115 CPC - Order rejecting application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and dismissing petition under Order XXI Rule 105 and 106 CPC is revisable under Section 115 CPC - The court held that such an order is a 'case decided' and is amenable to revision jurisdiction, as it disposes of the rights of the parties. (Paras 2-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against an order rejecting an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and dismissing the main petition under Order XXI Rule 105 and 106 CPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court overruled the office objection, allowed the Civil Revision Petition, set aside the impugned order dated 05.04.2019, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration of I.A. No.1 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on its merits, directing disposal within three months.

Law Points

  • Section 5 of Limitation Act
  • 1963
  • Order XXI Rule 105 and 106 CPC
  • Section 115 CPC
  • Maintainability of Civil Revision Petition
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (02) 46

CRP No. 100005 of 2020 (LAC)

2024-02-14

V. Srishananda

Sri. G.N. Narasammanavar

Smt. Kamal W/o Gulab Singh Rajaput

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Saundatti, now M.P.III Dharwad

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil Revision Petition challenging order rejecting application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and dismissing main petition under Order XXI Rule 105 and 106 CPC.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 05.04.2019 in LAC Misc. No.13/2014 and allow the revision petition with costs.

Filing Reason

The trial court rejected the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently dismissed the main petition.

Previous Decisions

The Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Saundatti, passed the impugned order on 05.04.2019.

Issues

Whether the Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against the impugned order.

Submissions/Arguments

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that a lenient view may be taken and the Civil Revision Petition be held maintainable, seeking overruling of the office objection.

Ratio Decidendi

An order rejecting an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and dismissing the main petition under Order XXI Rule 105 and 106 CPC constitutes a 'case decided' under Section 115 CPC, and therefore a Civil Revision Petition is maintainable against such an order.

Judgment Excerpts

In order to appreciate the arguments of the counsel for revision petitioner, it is just and necessary for this Court to culled out Order XXI Rule 105 and 106 of CPC.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed LAC Miscellaneous No.13/2014 under Order XXI Rule 105 and 106 read with Section 151 CPC. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (I.A. No.1) was filed, which was rejected by the trial court on 05.04.2019, leading to dismissal of the main petition. The petitioner then filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115, Order XXI Rule 105, Order XXI Rule 106, Section 151
  • Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Civil Revision Petition Against Rejection of Limitation Application in Land Acquisition Case. Order rejecting Section 5 Limitation Act application and dismissing petition under Order XXI Rule 105 and 106 CPC is revisabl...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Reinstates Criminal Proceedings Quashed by High Court Under Section 482 CrPC Due to Erroneous Exercise of Inherent Powers. High Court's Quashing Order Set Aside as It Entered into Merits and Stifled Legitimate Prosecution Despite Prima ...