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: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)   627        1996 SCALE  (5)140

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  Cinemas 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 are  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  in  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

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

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 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      and in  respect of 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 Sections 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 4  of the  Limitation Act becomes applicable we hold that Section  5 of  the Limitation Act does apply to appeals filed against  the order to 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

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

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.