1990 PLP 211 (MLD)

According to section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908, if any special or local law prescribes a period of limitation different from that prescribed by the First Schedule to the Limitation Act for filing any suit, appeal or application, the provisions of section 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed in the Schedule itself. Clause (a) of subsection (2) ordains that the provisions contained in section 4, sections 9 to 18, and section 22 shall apply to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. Clause (b) of the subsection provides that the remaining provisions of the Limitation Act shall not apply. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is not one of the provisions mentioned in clause (a) and, therefore, by virtue of clause (b) it has no applicability to the proceedings arising under any special or local law, if the period of limitation prescribed therein is different from that prescribed by the First Schedule to the Limitation Act. Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, is a special and local law and it prescribes a period of limitation for filing an appeal different from that provided by the Limitation Act. According to section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, appeal, to the High Court has to be filed within 30 days of the impugned order while Article 156 of the Limitation Act allows the period of 90 days during which an appeal can be filed in the High Court. This being the position, the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, do not apply to the appeals arising under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1963. Hafiz Muhammad Khan v. Salim and another 1988 SCMR 1863 and Ali Muhammad v. Fazal Hussain 1983 SCMR 1239 ref. Sh. Sikandar lqbal for Appellant. Sh. Muhammad Asadullah for Respondents. This appeal under section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, against order dated 2nd August, 1989 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Lahore Cantt. is barred by time. It is accompanied by an application (C.M.No.4021; 89) under section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal on the ground that the representative of the appellant, namely, Hafiz Rana, its General Manager, had fallen seriously ill and could not file the appeal earlier.

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sh. Muhammad Asadullah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to appeals arising out of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1963 and, therefore, the question of condoning delay in filing the appeal does not arise.

3. According to section 29(2) of Limitation Act, 1908, if any special or local law prescribes a period of limitation different from that prescribed by the First Schedule to the Limitation Act for filing any suit, appeal or application, the provisions of section 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed in the Schedule itself. Clause (a) of subsection (2) ordains that the provisions contained in section 4, sections 9 to 18, and section 22 shall apply to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. Clause (b) of the subsection provides that the remaining provisions of the Limitation Act shall not apply. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is not one of the provisions mentioned in clause (a) and, therefore, by virtue of clause (b) it has no applicability to the proceedings arising under, any special or local law, if the period of limitation prescribed therein is different from that prescribed by the First Schedule to the Limitation Act. There can be no manner of doubt that the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, is a special and local law and further that it prescribes a period of limitation for filing an appeal different from that provided by the Limitation Act. According to section 24 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, appeal to the High Court has to be filed within 30 days of the impugned order while Article 156 of the. Limitation Act allows the period of 90 days during which an appeal can be tiled in the High Court. This being the position, the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, do not apply to the appeals arising under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1963. This view finds full support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hafiz Muhammad Khan v. Salim and another 19&3 S C M 8 1863 and Ali Muhammad v. Fazal Hussain 1983 S C M R 1239.

4. For the reasons aforesaid, I hold that the petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act is not competent which is accordingly dismissed. As a result thereof, appeal is also dismissed as being time‑barred. The petitioner shall vacate the premises within four month‑, from today. A.A./B‑154/L. Appeal dismissed.