Section 5 Limitation Act Does Not Apply To Institution Of Civil Suit In Civil Court: Supreme Court

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of civil suit in the Civil Court, the Supreme Court said in a judgment on Friday (21 Jan 2022)

The court observed thus while setting aside a judgment passed by the NCDRC in which it observed that the complainant would be at liberty to seek remedy in the competent Civil Court. The Commission further observed that if he chooses to bring an action in a Civil Court, he is free to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The commission also recorded the statement of counsel for the SBI that it will not press the issue of limitation if action is brought by the complainant in a Civil Court.

"Such an observation/order passed by the National Commission is in utter ignorance of the provisions of the Limitation Act, in as much as Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of civil suit in the Civil Court.", the court said.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides that an appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

Section 2(l) of the Act clarifies that a  "suit" does not include an appeal or an application.

In this case, the complainant had filed the consumer case before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur alleging inter-alia that the opposite party i.e., Sunil Kr. Maity had a saving account number in a bank since January, 2000. On 24.02.2010, the said account number was changed. On 15.09.2012, the complainant went to deposit a sum of Rs. 500/- in the said account, when a staff of bank informed him that the account number had again been changed and wrote a different account number on his passbook. The said amount was deposited in the said account number. Thereafter, on 16.01.2013, the complainant deposited a cheque for Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn on SBI of the said Branch issued by one Prabir Pradhan having an SBI account number 030608507950. When the complainant went to update his passbook on 11.12.2013, he noticed that his passbook showed the balance of Rs. 59/- only, though he had not made any transaction between 16.01.2013 to 11.12.2013. On the enquiry having been made, the bank informed the complainant that there was another customer by the name Sunil Maity  whose account number  account number was wrongly given to the complainant whose name. The said Sunil 3 Maity withdrawn the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- respectively from the said account number. The complainant therefore wrote letters to the bank and thereafter filed the complaint before the Consumer Forum against the SBI and the said Sunil Maity. This complaint was allowed by the Consumer Forum against which an appeal was preferred by the bank before the State Commission (SCDRC). The SCDRC upheld the order of the Consumer Forum except to the extent of fine imposed. Therefore, the bank approached the NCDRC by filing revision petition. Allowing the petition, the NCDRC dismissed the complaint with liberty to the complainant to approach a competent civil court as per the law. Challenging this order, the Complainant approached the Apex court. The Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of NCDRC.