THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.versusSRI KARTICK CHANDRA DAS AND ORS.

                THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.                              A
                                       v.
                SRI KARTICK CHANDRA DAS AND ORS.

                                   MAY 6, 1996

              [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                           B

         Letters Patent (Calcutta High Court)/Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 :

       Clause 15/s. 19-Letters patent appeal against issuance of contempt
notice-Limitation-Delay in filing appeal-Applicatio11 under s. 5 of Limita-    C
tio11 Act-Division Bench of High Cowt holding thats. 5 did not apply to the
appeaHfigh Court was not 1ight in holding that s. 5 of Limitation Act did
not apply to the appeal--Delay co11do11ed-Case remitted to Division Be11ch
of High Court for decision on merits.

         Limitatio11 Act, 1963 :                                               D
      Ss. 3, 5, 29(2)-Delay in filing letters patent appeal before Calcutta
High Court against issuance of contempt notice-Division Bench of High
Court rejecting application for condonation of delay holding that s. 5 of
Limitation Act does not apply to the appeal-Held, s. 5 of Limitation Act       E
does apply to the appeals filed against the order of single Judge for the
enforcement by way of contempt.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9069 of
1996.
                                                                               F
     From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.94 of the Calcutta High
Court in F.M.A.T. No. 1009 of 1994.

         S. Hegde, Chandrasekhar, Dilip Sinha and J.R. Das for the Appel-
lants.
                                                                               G
     Haradhan Banerjee, Ranjan Mukherjee and Nilmoni Das for the
Respondents.

         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         Leave granted.                                                        H
                                       373
    374                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996]SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A         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
B   respondents as per the said scheme. The appellant had carried the 1nattcr
    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 has taken out contempt proceed-
    ings against the appellant for non-enforcement of the direction issued by
c   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
D           as section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply the appeal is
            dismissed. The application under the Limitation Act is also dis-
            missed.1'

          Thus this appeal by special leave.
E         It is not in dispute that under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts
    Act, an ap{\eal 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
F   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 opera-
    tion 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
G   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
H   under the Contempt of Court Act, the High Court has framed the rules.
                                STATE v. KC DAS                          375

Rule 35 envisages that :                                                        A
        "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
                           11
                                                                                B
        mutatis mutan<lis.

Therefore, for the appeals filed under clause 1.5 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.                                          C

      Section 29 of the Limitation envisages 'Savings. Sub-section (2) there-
of reads thus :

        "(2) where any special or local Jaw prescribes for any suit, appeal     D
        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 Jaw, the
        provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only   E
        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 F
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 lo Letters Patents 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 G
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 Limita-
tion 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, H
    376                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   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.
B
    R.P.                                                        Appeal allowed.