http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SRI KARTICK CHANDRA DAS & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/05/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      The learned  single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta exercising the  power under  article 226 of the Constitution in Civil  Order No  241(W) of 1992 directed the appellant to grant registration  in  terms  of  the  West  Bengal  Cinema Development  Scheme,  1976  and  to  grant  subsidy  to  the respondents as  per the  said scheme.    The  appellant  had carried the  matter in appeal against the said order in FMAT No.3244/92 with  an application for stay of the operation of the order.   We  re informed  that the  appeal  is  pending. Pending  appeal   the  respondent  had  taken  out  contempt proceedings against the appellant for non-enforcement of the direction issued  by the  learned single Judge.  Against the contempt notice,  the appellants have filed a Letters Patent Appeal to  the Division  bench.   The Division  Bench n  the impugned order  dated November  4, 1994  passed the order as under:      "Having heard  the learned  counsel      for  the  parties  we  are  of  the      opinion that  the delay  in  filing      this appeal being not condonable as      section 5  of  the  Limitation  Act      does  not   apply  the   appeal  is      dismissed.   The application  under      the   Limitation    Act   is   also      dismissed."      Thus this appeal by special leave.      It is  not in  dispute that  under Section  19  of  the Contempt of  Courts Act, an appeal would lie to the Division Bench and  limitation of  30 days from the date of the order has been  prescribed subject  to the  exclusion of  the time taken for  obtaining the  certified copy  thereof.   We have seen that  the appellate  side rules  of the  Calcutta  High Court applicable to the area other than the city of Calcutta had not expressly excluded the application of the limitation under the Limitation Act.      Learned counsel  for the  respondent sought  to contend that by  operation of  Rule 3  of Chapter 8 of the appellate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

side rules under the letters patent the memorandum of appeal drawn up  under Order  41 Rule 1 CPC requires to be complied with as  envisaged thereunder since it had not been provided with any  limitation.   The Division  Bench was,  therefore, right in  holding that  the Limitation  Act was not extended for an  appeal filed  under clause  15 of the letters patent against the   order passed by the learned single Judge under the provisions  of the  Contempt of  Courts act.  It is seen that under  the Contempt  of Court  Act, the  High Court has framed the rules.  Rule 35 envisages that:      "In respect  of  appeals  from  the      orders of any Judge or Bench of the      Original  Side  the  rules  of  the      Original Side  relating to  appeals      from the  order  of  any  Judge  or      Bench of  the Appellate  Side,  the      rules of  the Appellate  Side shall      apply mutatis mutandis."      Therefore, for the appeals filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge for the  contempt proceedings by necessary consequences, the procedure prescribed  on the  appellate side  would also  be applicable and followed.      Section 29 of the Limitation envisages ’Savings’.  Sub- section (2) thereof reads thus:      "(2) where any special or local law      prescribes for  any suit, appeal or      application a  period of limitation      different    from     the    period      prescribed  by  the  Schedule,  the      provisions of Section 3 shall apply      as if  such period  were the period      prescribed by  the schedule and for      the  purpose   of  determining  any      period of limitation prescribed for      any suit,  appeal or application by      any  special   or  local  law,  the      provisions contained  in Section  4      to 24  (inclusive) shall apply only      insofar as, and to       the extent      to which.,  they are  not expressly      excluded by  such special  or local      law."      In consequence, by operation of Section 29(2) read with Section  3   of  the   Limitation  Act,   limitation  stands prescribed as a special law under Section 19 of the contempt of Courts act and limitation in filing Letters Patent Appeal stands attracted.   In  consequence, Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act  stands attracted  to Letters  Patent  Appeal insofar as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded either  by special  or local  law.  Since the rules made on  the appellate  side, either  for  entertaining  the appeals under  clause 15  of the  Letters Patent  or appeals arising   under the  contempt of  courts, had  not expressly excluded.     Section  5   of  the  Limitation  Act  becomes applicable. We  hold that  Section 5  of the  Limitation Act does apply  to the  appeals filed  against the  order of the learned single  Judge  for  the  enforcement  by  way  of  a contempt.   The High  Court, therefore,  was  not  right  in holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply. The delay  stands condoned.   Since  the High  Court had not dealt with  the matter  on merits, we decline to express any opinion on merits.  The case stands remitted to the division bench for decision on merits.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3