The interpretation of the first part of Article 54 of Schedule 1 of the Act is no longer res-integra. Article 54 reads as follows:
18. In Ahmadsahab Abdul Mulla (2) (Dead) v. Bibijan and Ors. MANU/SC/0533/2009 : (2009) 5 SCC 462 the following question was considered by a three judge Bench of this Court: "Whether the use of the expression "date" used in Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short "the Act") is suggestive of a specific date in the calendar?"
19. While answering this question on a reference made to the three judge Bench, this Court considered the meaning of the word "date" and "fixed" appearing in Article 54. Upon such consideration, this Court held that the expression "date fixed for the performance" is a crystallized notion. When a date is fixed it means there is a definite date fixed for doing a particular act. Therefore, there is no question of finding out the intention from other circumstances. It was reiterated that the expression "date" is definitely suggestive of a specified date in the calendar. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Report in this regard are of importance and they read as follows:
11. The inevitable conclusion is that the expression "date fixed for the performance" is a crystallized notion. This is clear from the fact that the second part "time from which period begins to run" refers to a case where no such date is fixed. To put it differently, when date is fixed it means that there is a definite date fixed for doing a particular act. Even in the second part the stress is on "when the Plaintiff has notice that performance is refused". Here again, there is a definite point of time, when the Plaintiff notices the refusal. In that sense both the parts refer to definite dates. So, there is no question of finding out an intention from other circumstances.
12. Whether the date was fixed or not the Plaintiff had notice that performance is refused and the date thereof are to be established with reference to materials and evidence to be brought on record. The expression "date" used in Article 54 of the Schedule to the Act definitely is suggestive of a specified date in the calendar. We answer the reference accordingly. The matter shall now be placed before the Division Bench for deciding the issue on merits.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 6687 of 2016
Decided On: 01.08.2016
Madina Begum and Ors. Vs. Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Madan B. Lokur and R.K. Agrawal, JJ.
Citation: 2016 (15) SCC 322
