Special statutory appeals without a prescribed limitation period remain maintainable when filed within reasonable time without demonstrated prejudice.

Article 116 of the Limitation Act applies only to appeals governed by the Code of Civil Procedure and does not extend to the sui generis appellate remedy under Section 22(8) of the Jogighopa Act, which makes only limited procedural incorporations. The article further explains that, where neither the special statute nor the Limitation Act prescribes an appeal period, the remedy must be exercised within a reasonable time assessed from the statutory scheme, parties' conduct, delay and actual prejudice; a court cannot impose a fixed period omitted by the legislature. On the stated facts, the appeal was within reasonable time and should proceed before the competent District Judge on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to an appeal under Section 22(8) of the Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990; (ii) Whether the appeal filed against the Commissioner of Payments' decision was maintainable despite no prescribed limitation period.

Issue (i): Whether Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to an appeal under Section 22(8) of the Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990.

Analysis: Article 116 applies to appeals under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The special enactment confers on the Commissioner only specified civil-court powers for investigation and permits the Commissioner to regulate its own procedure. It also deems the Commissioner to be a civil court only for limited criminal-procedural purposes. These express and restricted incorporations exclude a general application of the Code. An appeal to the principal civil court under Section 22(8), including the distinct provision for an appeal to a High Court Division Bench where the Commissioner is a High Court Judge, is a sui generis statutory remedy and not an appeal governed by the Code.

Conclusion: Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to an appeal under Section 22(8) of the Jogighopa Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal filed against the Commissioner of Payments' decision was maintainable despite no prescribed limitation period.

Analysis: Where neither the special statute nor the Limitation Act prescribes a period, the statutory remedy must be exercised within a reasonable time, assessed from the facts, conduct, statutory scheme, delay, and actual prejudice to the opposing party. A court cannot impose a fixed limitation period where the legislature deliberately omitted one. Although the Act prescribes strict periods for lodging claims, it omits any period for an appeal under Section 22(8). The intervening pursuit of contempt proceedings and the overall sequence did not establish unreasonable delay or resulting prejudice.

Conclusion: The appeal was filed within a reasonable time and is maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The statutory appeal against the Commissioner's decision must proceed before the competent District Judge for adjudication on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A limitation provision applicable to appeals under the Code of Civil Procedure cannot govern a special statutory appeal unless the special enactment makes the Code applicable to that appellate remedy; where no limitation is prescribed, maintainability depends on reasonable time and demonstrated prejudice rather than a judicially imposed fixed period.

---