Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that:
(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Image Source: 3.bp.blogspot.com
(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 in so far as and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(3) Save as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force with respect to marriage and divorce, nothing in this Act shall apply to any suit or other proceeding under any such law.
(4) Sections 25 and 26 and the definition of ‘easement’ in Section 2 shall not apply to cases arising in the territories to which the Indian Easement Act, 1882, may for the time being extended.
Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will not apply to any special or local law unless such special or local law prescribes a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 29(2) provides for the application of Section 3 to such cases as would not come within its purview. Section 29(2) provides that for the purpose of determining limitation prescribed by a special or local law Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply unless they are expressly excluded by such special or local law.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Section 29(2) does not prohibit the making of a provision in the Local Act for the applicability of the entire Limitation Act.
When the special law does not provide any period of limitation different from the one contained in the Limitation Act, the latter Act applies by implication to proceeding under such special law.
In Bhakti Bh. Mondal v. Khagendra, (AIR 1968 Cal. 69), it has been held that the prescription of a period of limitation by the special or local law for a suit, appeal or application, for which no period of limitation is prescribed by the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963, must be taken to be prescribed of a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the First Schedule, for the purpose of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act.
If the special or local law is a complete Code in the matter of limitation then Section 29(2) is not applicable. Special law means a law which is not applicable generally but which applies to a particular or special subject or subjects whereas a general law applies to the whole community.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In Fair-growth Investment Ltd. v. Custodian, [(2004) 1 SCC 472], it has been declared that:
For the applicability of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the facts of a given case and for importing the machinery of the provisions containing in Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act the following two requirements have to be satisfied by the Court invoking the said provision:
(i) There must be a provision for period of limitation under any special or local law in connection with any suit, appeal or application.
(ii) Such prescription of the period of limitation under such special or local law should be different from the period of limitation prescribed by the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.
If the above two conditions are satisfied then the following consequences contemplated by Section 29(2) would automatically follow:
(i) In such a case Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply as if the period prescribed by such special or local law was the period prescribed by the Schedule.
(ii) For determining any period of limitation prescribed for such special or local law for a suit, appeal or application all the provisions continuing in Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (inclusive) will apply in so far as and to the extent they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.
In order to attract Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and for importing the machinery of the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) of the Limitation Act, 1963 there must be a provision for period of limitation under any special or local law in connection with any suit, appeal or application and the said prescription of period of limitation under such special or local law should be different from the period prescribed by the Schedule to the Limitation Act. It is also necessary to attract’ the above provisions that the jurisdiction under such special or local law to entertain a proceeding is given to the ordinary Courts of law.
The following are the examples of special laws which attract Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963:
(i) The Hindu Endowment Act (Apurba v. Shib Prasad, AIR 1963 Ori. 65).
(ii) M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (Competent Authority v. Vijay Gupta, 1998 Supp. (2) SCC 631).
(iii) The Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (S.S. Nahata v. K.D. Co., AIR 1981 HP 23).
(iv) Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act (Kunja v. Mritunjoy, AIR 1950 Cal. 54).
(v) Specific Relief Act (Pratapsing Ganapatrao Kadam v. Maruti Raghunath Tadkar, AIR 2003 Bom. 11).
(vi) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 [Jokkim v. Amina, AIR 1974 Ker. 162 (FB)].
(vii) Revenue Courts (Sahkari Gauna Vikash Samiti Ltd. v. Mahabir Sugar Mills (P) Ltd., AIR 1982 SC 119).
(viii) The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Raghavan v. Unnikrishnan, AIR 1972 Ker. 218).
(ix) Portuguese Civil Code or other Codes applicable to Goa, Daman and Diu prior to liberation (Sharad Vaidva v. Paulo, AIR 1992 Bom. 478).
It is observed that although Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall not apply to any suit or proceedings relating to matrimonial cases, Section 29(2) clearly envisages that when any special or local law prescribes a period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application different from the period prescribed by the Schedule under the Limitation Act, 1963 the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act shall apply.