Limitation in matrimonial appeals: Section 5 applies, delayed condonation can be filed later, and admission was not reopened.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act is stated to apply to appeals under the Hindu Marriage Act because Section 29(3) is read as referring to original proceedings in the nature of suits, not appeals; the objection that matrimonial appeals are excluded therefore fails. Order 41 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure is described as a procedural requirement to ensure early consideration of limitation, but not a jurisdictional bar, so a later application for condonation of delay remains maintainable where Section 5 applies. An admission of the appeal after notice and hearing of the respondent is said not to be reopenable at that stage. The preliminary objections were overruled and the matter was directed to proceed on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act notwithstanding Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act; (ii) Whether an application for condonation of delay must necessarily accompany the memorandum of appeal under Order 41 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (iii) Whether the earlier admission of the appeal on condonation of delay could be reopened at the respondent's instance.

Issue (i): Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act notwithstanding Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: An appeal under the Hindu Marriage Act is an appeal under that special statute, and Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act makes Sections 3 to 25 applicable to proceedings under special laws unless excluded. Section 29(3), read in context, was held to use the expression "other proceeding" in the sense of original proceedings in the nature of suits, not appeals. The wider construction would defeat the beneficial provisions governing appeals and lead to unjust and absurd consequences. The legislative context, scheme of the Limitation Act, and the object disclosed in the materials accompanying the enactment supported that restricted interpretation.

Conclusion: Section 5 applies to matrimonial appeals under the Hindu Marriage Act, and the objection based on Section 29(3) fails.

Issue (ii): Whether an application for condonation of delay must necessarily accompany the memorandum of appeal under Order 41 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Rule 3A was treated as a procedural provision intended to secure early determination of limitation, not as an absolute bar that automatically nullifies a later condonation application. Procedure was held to be a handmaid of justice, and the absence of a simultaneous application was not treated as fatal where the court still had power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to entertain a later application. Non-compliance may justify dismissal, but it does not extinguish jurisdiction to condone delay.

Conclusion: The later-filed application for condonation was maintainable and the delay could be condoned.

Issue (iii): Whether the earlier admission of the appeal on condonation of delay could be reopened at the respondent's instance.

Analysis: Since the appeal had been admitted after notice to and hearing of the respondent, the prior order was not open to reconsideration on the same objection at a later stage. The court also noted that the objection had already failed on the merits.

Conclusion: The admission order was not open to challenge at that stage.

Final Conclusion: The preliminary objections to the appeal were overruled, the condonation of delay was upheld, and the matter was directed to proceed to hearing on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: In Section 29(3) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the words "other proceeding" mean original proceedings in the nature of suits and do not exclude appeals; consequently, Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to matrimonial appeals unless expressly barred, and Order 41 Rule 3A is procedural rather than jurisdictional.

---