SAKURU versus TANAJI

SAKURU versus TANAJI

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to appeals before the Collector under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, as section 93 only applies to computation of the period of limitation and not extension, and the Collector is not a 'Court'. Amendments after the events of this case do not operate retrospectively and are not clarificatory.

Parties
Appellant: Sakuru; Respondent: Tanaji
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 July 1985
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Andhra Pradesh High Court Civil Revision Petition No. 3289 of 1977, Judgment Dated 12.4.1978
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Condonation of Delay, Applicability of Limitation Act to Quasi Judicial Tribunals
Tenancy Law Limitation Law Condonation of Delay Applicability of Limitation Act to Quasi Judicial Tribunals

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sakuru

Appellant

Tanaji

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Andhra Pradesh High Court Civil Revision Petition No. 3289 of 1977, Judgment Dated 12.4.1978

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be invoked for condoning delay in filing an appeal before the Collector under Section 90 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950

Ratio Decidendi

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to appeals before the Collector under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, as section 93 only applies to computation of the period of limitation and not extension, and the Collector is not a 'Court'. Amendments after the events of this case do not operate retrospectively and are not clarificatory.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed without order as to costs