Limitation Act Section 5 applies to claim petitions under attachment procedure, unless excluded by necessary intendment.

Section 84(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes a six-month period for filing a claim or objection to attachment under Section 83, and the special procedure in Chapter VI C does not, by necessary intendment, exclude Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Accordingly, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is available in principle to seek condonation of delay in a claim petition under Section 84(1). On title, the absence of supporting material such as mutation and revenue records was treated as a factual deficiency, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration with permission to place additional materials.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether delay in filing a claim petition under Section 84(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be condoned by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963; (ii) Whether the petitioner's right and title over the attached property were proved.

Issue (i): Whether delay in filing a claim petition under Section 84(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be condoned by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: Section 84(1) of the Code prescribes a six-month period for preferring a claim or objection to attachment under Section 83. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to special laws prescribing a different period of limitation, and Sections 4 to 24 apply unless expressly excluded. The special procedure in Chapter VI C of the Code does not, by its scheme, purpose, or object, show exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 by necessary intendment. A claim petition under Section 84(1) is therefore not outside the reach of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Conclusion: Yes. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is available in principle for a claim petition under Section 84(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner's right and title over the attached property were proved.

Analysis: The finding against the petitioner rested on the absence of supporting material such as mutation and revenue records following the transfer. Since the matter involved factual questions affecting title and the scope of objection to attachment, the parties were entitled to place relevant material before the court for fresh consideration.

Conclusion: The finding was set aside and the question was remitted for reconsideration.

Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Magistrate for fresh consideration after permitting the petitioner to seek condonation of delay and to place additional materials.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special law prescribes a different limitation period, Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply unless expressly excluded by necessary intendment; in the absence of such exclusion, Section 5 can be invoked.

---