Key Provisions of the Limitation Act 1908
Section-5
Petition is barred by limitation of 195 days grounds taken for condonation are that the relevant Ministry asked legal opinion for filing a leave petition and also to get a certified copy of the High Court Division order, that the file was sent to the Attorney General and then to the Additional Attorney General for opinion, that thereafter, it was sent to the solicitor who was pleased to appoint an ‘Advocate-on-Record, that the solicitors office asked the Ministry of Home Affairs for supplying necessary documents and papers, that thereafter necessary fund was sought for etc, — there is no good ground for its condonation—petition dismissed. [Para-2]
The Principal Secretary Vs. Mohammad Abdul Baten 2 BLT (AD)-90
Section-5
Delay of 1302 days—Held: lam of the opinion that the Governments difficulty should be decided more closely and carefully as to condonation of delay to give relief to the Government which is a mere concept and it has to depend on others in making decision of taking action.
In the present case, it is clear that the Government as a litigant had been very active and it had no negligence in pursuing the matter. The question is not the days of delay, it is the manner and bonafide how the delay has been explained. In this case the explanation of delay is found satisfactory and bonafide. [Paras – 12 & 14]
A.D.C (Rev) Vs. Mohammad Kftairullah & Ors. 5 BLT (MCD)- 119
Sections-5 and 29(2)
Artha Rin Adalat Act, 1990—Section 7(1) Special Period of Limitation in a special law— Section-5 of the Limitation Act has no application to the Artha Rin Adalat cases relating to the filing of appeal. LParas-4 & 6]
Rupali Bank Ltd. Vs. Mr Iqbal Kaisar IBLT (HCD)-53 Section-5
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 is a special law and the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act has not been made applicable to an appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal. [Para-4]
Secretary Ministry of Post & TeL & Ors. Vs. M. Akramuddin 7BLT (AD)-11
Section- 14
Administrative Tribunal Act being a special law if provision of section 14 of the Limitation Act applies. If the time for disposal of the writ petition can be excluded in competition of the period of limitation of six months, from the date or order of termination.
Section 29 of the Act says that the provision in section 4, sections-9-18 and section 22 shall apply to a case under a special or local law only in so far as, and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. [Para-51
Bangladesft Bank & Ors Vs. Mohammad Abdul Mannan 2 BLT (AD)-101
Article-92
The signature and thumb impression in the solenama are forged — when would limitation begin to run — the period of limitation will run from the date of the knowledge of the forgery of the solenama. [Para – 8]
K. Khatun & Ors. Vs. H. Biswas & Ors. 4 BLT(HCD)-126
Article- 113
Article 113 of the first schedule of the Limitation Act is the proper provision which governs a suit for specific performance of a contract. Under this article the period of limitation is three years from the date fixed for the performance or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. It is nobody’s case that any date was fixed for performance. [Para-7]
A. D. C. Wested Property) Vs. Md. Serajul Islam & Ors. 6 BLT (AD)-132
Article -120
The Limitation Act does not specifically provide for any particular period of limitation in filing suits by a Muslim for arrears of maintenance although Articles 128 and 129 of the first schedule provide for a period of 12 years each by a Hindu for arrears of maintenance and for a declaration Of his right to maintenance and the time for which period begins to run is when the arrears are payable. No such corresponding provisions exist in respect of suit filed by a Muslim for a corresponding relief. Residuary Article 120, providing for a period of limitation of 6 years from the time when the right to sue accrues in respect of a suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the first schedule, will be applicable to a suit for maintenance under ordinance of 1985. [Para-23]
Jamila Khatoon Vs. Rustom Ali 4 BLT (AD)-97
Article- 148
The transfer in question is a complete usufructory mortgage, so limitation will be Governed by Article 148 of the Limitation Act which is 60 years. [Para-6]
Rajuddin Chowdhwij Vs. Suruj Ali 3 BLT (HCD)-135
Article-149
When the period of limitation runs in case of govt. khas land. Suit land being khas land, limitation of 60 years will apply to this case the plaintiff claims adversely against the government. [Para- 13]
Fazlur Rahman Vs. Bangladesh 1 BLT (HCD)-18
Article- 164
Order-9 Rule- 13—In the instant case defendant opposite party-2 admittedly received summons, duly filed written statement in the suit and obtained a number of adjournments and ex parte decree was passed against her, their application under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. must be filed within 30 days from the date of the ex parte decree and not from the knowledge of such decree — relied on 13 DLR-225, 25 DLR-9l, 25 DLR-250 1952 PLD (Lahore) 456. (Paras-l0 & 11)
M. A. Hossain Khan Vs. Awlad Hossain & Anr 5 BLT (HCD)- 106
Article- 164
Petitioner’s case under order-9 rule- 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure—no specific objection was taken in the written objection regarding limitation and no evidence was led to prove that defendant No. 2 had definite knowledge about the cx parte decree earlier than what was stated in his application—in this case, it is manifestly evident that fraud was practiced upon the court in obtaining the cx parte decree on fraudulent suppression of summons on the defendant petitioner—Held: I am inclined to hold that the alleged delay of the petitioner in coming to the Court for vindication of his grievances, as found by the learned Courts below, cannot stand in the way of his getting the relief, to which he is otherwise entitled to under the law, the essence of law being to advance the cause of justice and not to frustrate it. If fraud is allowed to be perpetrated and perpetuated, the sanctity attached to law will neither away with disastrous consequences for the society. I hold, in the circumstances of the case, that Article 164 of the Limitation Act is no bar against the petitioner in getting the relief. [Para- 15]
Md, Yousuf All Vs. Araj All & Ors. 6 BLT(HCD)-123
Article – 173
In a money suit by Rupali Bank against a Private Ltd. company and its Directors defendants, names of Director-defendants being struck off at their instance and their transferees being impleaded subsequently in presence of Banks representative, plaintiff-Bank without seeking any remedy within 10 months and without giving any explanation of delay filed a review petition which was rejected and against which in plaintiff Bank preferred revisional application which was also rejected on ground of limitation — No illegality done plaintiff directed to take action against its own wrong doers.
The order of the trial court striking off the names of the defendants guarantors is improper, but as it was passed in presence of the Banks representative and no action was taken in time by seeking remedy from the superior Court, the petition for correction of the order, being delayed, was legally rejected. The petitioner Bank should take action against the wrong doer. [Paras-3 & 4]
Rupali Bank Vs. Tobacco Industry Ltd and others 1 BLT (AD)-33
Article-182 (2) (3) (6)
The time should run from the date of the final decree and the right to apply for execution accrues on the date of the final decree of the appellate Court or revisional Court. [Para – 11]
Hares Mia Vs. Khursheda Khatun & Ors 4 BLT (HCD)-84
Period for filing a revisional application in the High Court Division under Section 115 C.P.C.
There is no period specifically prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1908 for filing a revisional application in the High Court Division under Section 115 C.P.C. But as a matter of long standing practice such revisional application is filed in the High Court Division within 90 days from the date of the order complained of as has been prescribed for filing of appeal in the High Court Division. In the absence of any prescribed period of limitation, no question can legally be raised that a revisional application under Section 115 C.P.C is barred by limitation if it is filed beyond 90 days; but as a matter of practice and prudence, the High Court Division before exercising its discretionary power under Section 115 C.P.C should satis1r itself that no unconscionable delay has been caused wilfully in filing such revisional application. [Para-6]
Suraiya Ashraf & Ors. Vs. Rahimullah Chowdhury 7 BLT (AD)-131.