Pareed Pillay, J.:— The appeal is against the order of the Forest Tribunal, Kozbikode in I.A No. 204 of 1981 in O.A 372 of 1981. The petitioner filed I.A 204 of 1981 under S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay on filing the O.A Tribunal dismissed the petition holding that it has no jurisdiction to condone the delay.
2. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the Forest Tribunal can condone delay in filing applications filed before it. S. 5 of the Limitation Act provides for extension of prescribed period in appeals or applications before the Court if the applicant satisfied the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the period specified. Counsel for the appellants contends that S. 5 of the Limitation Act can be made applicable to proceedings before the Forest Tribunal as there is no express exclusion of the Limitation Act under Act 26 of 1971. Such a contention is not tenable as S. 5 of the Limitation Act applies only to courts. In Athani Municipality v. Labour Court, Huglt, ((1969) 1 SCC 873 : A.I.R 1969 S.C 1335) the Supreme Court held as follows:
“We are unable to find any provision in the new Limitation Act which would justify holding that these changes in definition were intended to make the Limitation Act applicable to proceedings before bodies other than courts”.
3. In Nttyanand v. Life Insurance Corporation of India ((1969) 2 SCC 199 : A.I.R 1970 S.C 209) the Supreme Court observed:
“From Ss. 4 and 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 it was clear that the Limitation Act deals only with applications to courts. This being the position, even if the power under S. 5 were to be read into a special local law by reason of the provisions of S. 29 of the Limitation Act, that power is exercisable only by courts and not by tribunals or other authorities such as the appellate authority in this case”.
4. In Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax v. T.R.I (1981 K.L.T 398) it was held as follows:
“Ss. 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act can be relied on for extension of time in respect of a proceeding in court and not before a Tribunal or other authority, under any local or special law”.
5. Counsel for the appellant relying on State of Kerela v. Syamala (1980 K.L.T 34) contended that Ss. 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, shall, to the extent to which these provisions have not been expressly excluded by a special or local law, apply for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by such special or local law. In the above decision the question that arose for consideration was regarding the period of limitation in appeal presented before the High Court under S. 8A of Act 26 of 1971. S. 8A provides for appeal to the High Court against any decision of the Forest Tribunal. The period within which appeal has to be filed is 60 days. The proviso to S. 8A makes it clear that the High Court can admit an appeal preferred after the expiration of the period of 60 days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the said period. Thus the proviso enables a party to move for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the High Court. 1980 K.L.T 34 is not of any assistance to hold that Forest Tribunal can condone delay in filing applications before it. Rule 3 of Kerala Private Forests (Tribunal) Rules, 1972 provides that application under S. 8 shall be presented to the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of publication of the notification under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2A of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1974 in respect of the land to which the dispute relates, whichever is later. There is no provision under the Act or Rules to enable the Forest Tribunal to condone the period of limitation if a party was unable to file the application within time.
6. As the Forset Tribunal is not a civil court and as it is only a quasi judicial authority all the trappings of a court cannot be made applicable to it.
7. Forest Tiibunal being not a court cannot condone delay on the application filed before it under S. 5 of the Limitation Act.
8. There is no merit in the appeal and hence it is diswissed. No costs.
9. Dismissed.