Special law and limitation principles: Section 5 applied to writ appeals, and delay was condoned for sufficient cause.

A High Court rule framed under constitutional rule-making power and prescribing a distinct limitation period for writ appeals was treated as a special law under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. Because Rule 2 did not expressly exclude Section 5, the provision for condonation of delay remained available, and the rule was not regarded as a complete code excluding Sections 4 to 24. On the facts, delay in filing the writ appeal was explained by transfer and misplacement of the case file, the explanation covered the full period, and sufficient cause was established. The delay was therefore condoned.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Gauhati High Court Rules are a special law within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether Section 5 of that Act applies to writ appeals filed under Rule 2 of Chapter V (A); (ii) whether Rule 2 excludes the applicability of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by reason of being a complete code; (iii) whether the delay in filing the writ appeal was sufficiently explained and liable to be condoned.

Issue (i): Whether the Gauhati High Court Rules are a special law within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether Section 5 of that Act applies to writ appeals filed under Rule 2 of Chapter V (A).

Analysis: The Rules were held to be framed by the High Court in exercise of rule-making power preserved by Article 225 of the Constitution of India and therefore to have the force of law. They were treated as a special law because they operate in a special field and govern a special class of appeals. Rule 2 creates a writ appeal and prescribes its own period of limitation, which is different from the limitation scheme in the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Since Rule 2 does not expressly exclude Section 5, and Section 29(2) saves Sections 4 to 24 unless expressly excluded, the provision for condonation of delay remains available.

Conclusion: Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to writ appeals under Rule 2, and the answer is in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 2 excludes the applicability of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by reason of being a complete code.

Analysis: The plea that Rule 2 forms a complete code was rejected because the rule contains no scheme comparable to the dismissal provisions found in election law and no express withdrawal of the benefit of Section 5. Mere prescription of a limitation period in mandatory language was held insufficient to displace the Limitation Act. The reasoning in election petition cases was found inapplicable because those statutes contained a self-contained mechanism and an express legislative intent to exclude delay-related relief.

Conclusion: Rule 2 is not a complete code excluding Section 5 or Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the answer is in favour of the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the delay in filing the writ appeal was sufficiently explained and liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The delay was explained by the movement of the case file within the office of the Government Advocate during changes in incumbency, followed by the misplacement of the records and their later recovery among disposed cases. The explanation covered the entire period of delay, there was no laches attributable to the litigants, and no ulterior purpose was shown. The cause shown was accepted as bona fide and adequate for the exercise of discretion under Section 5.

Conclusion: The delay was rightly condoned on sufficient cause being shown, and the answer is in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The application for extension of time was maintainable, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was available in the writ appeal, and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned on sufficient cause being established.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court rule framed under constitutional rule-making power and prescribing limitation for a special class of appeals is a special law for the purpose of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, and Section 5 applies unless expressly excluded by that special law.

---