Article 137 limitation applies to special statute petitions filed before a civil court for judicial determination.

Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 extends beyond applications under the Code of Civil Procedure and governs any petition or application made to a civil court for judicial determination. The District Judge, when seized of a compensation petition under section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, acts as a civil court, so the reference to that judge is a reference to the court. Accordingly, a petition for enhanced compensation under the Telegraph Act falls within Article 137, and the limitation objection fails.

---

---

Issues: Whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to a petition filed under section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 before the District Judge for enhanced compensation, and whether such a petition is an application to a court.

Analysis: Article 137 uses the expression "any other application" and, unlike Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is not confined by the earlier ejusdem generis approach to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure. The scheme of the Limitation Act, including sections 3, 4 and 5, indicates that Article 137 governs applications made to a court, because those provisions speak in terms of a court being closed and a court extending time for sufficient cause. The petition under section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act is made to the District Judge for judicial determination of compensation disputes under section 10, and the statutory scheme, including sections 16(4) and 34, shows that the District Judge acts as a civil court. The reference to the District Judge is, in context, a reference to the court of the District Judge, and petitions under special laws can fall within Article 137 when filed before a civil court.

Conclusion: Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to petitions or applications filed under a special Act before a civil court, including a petition under section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The limitation objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's view was set aside and the compensation petition was held to be governed by Article 137, thereby restoring the appellant's success on the limitation issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not confined to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure and extends to any petition or application under a special Act when made to a civil court for judicial determination.

---