High Court · 2010

5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Sub-Sectio n 1 of the Section 23 of the Act, the High Court is prescribed as the appellate forum to file an appeal against the judgment of the claims tribunal, and as such provision contained under Order 41 C.P.C. and the relevant High Court Rules reg ulating an appeal filed in the High Court would be applicable. Since the appeal s are not filed within the prescribed period of limitation as contained in Secti on 23(3) of the Act, the provisions of Order 41 of CPC would come into force an d accordingly in terms of Order 41 Rule 3A of CPC, the applicant /petitioner is entitled to file application for condonation of delay in filing the connected ap peals. It is further contended that since the Claims Tribunal is not a court wi thin the provisions of Limitation Act, a specific provision under Section 17(2) of the Act has made for condonation of delay on showing sufficient cause filing the application. Although there is no such specific provision empowering the ap pellate court to condone the delay, such power is available under provision of O rder 41 of the CPC. The further contention of the learned counsel is that the p rovisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act would be applicable and accordi ngly the benefit of Section 5 would also be applicable to the petitioner. 6) on by the learned counsel for the applicant/ petitioners- i) AIR 1953 SC 357 ( National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd.,Chidambaram -vs- James In support of his submissions, following decisions are relied up Chandwick and Bros. Ltd. ) (1995) 2 SCC 493 (Birla Cement Works -vs- G.M. Western Railways and anot ii) AIR 1960 SC 384 (All India Station Masters’ and Assistant Station Master s’ Association, Delhi and others -vs- General Manager, Central Railway and other s ) iii) her) iv) v) ia Pvt. Ltd. and another) vi)