bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7839 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7839 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7839 OF 2008 Milind Developers ... Petitioners v/s The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & ors. ... Respondents Mr.G.V.Murti i/by M/s.Murti Associates for the petitioners. Mr.A.J.Bhor for the respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 4TH DECEMBER, 2008 4TH DECEMBER, 2008 4TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Municipal Appeal Stamp No.767 of 2008. By this order, the Small Causes Court has rejected the appeal because it was barred by limitation. 2. The petitioners were issued two special notices on 14.3.2007 under Section 167 and 163(2) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (in short, "the Act") intimating them of the increased rateable value for their premises from the existing Rs.47,160/- to 2 Rs.3,61,975/- with effect from 1.4.2006. The petitioners raised their objections against this increase. They were heard after a detailed written submission was submitted by them. On 11.9.2008, the investigating officer informed to the petitioners that the rateable value was fixed at Rs.2,85,770/- and Rs.2,04,835/- in the two complaints. The petitioners applied for a copy of the speaking order since it was not supplied to them on 11.9.2008. After receipt of the order on 26.9.2008, the petitioners preferred an appeal on 6.10.2008. This appeal has been rejected on 13.10.2008 by the Small Causes Court on the ground that it has been filed beyond the period of limitation. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners were informed that the rateable value being fixed on 11.9.2008. However, the speaking order was not furnished to them on that day. It was only after the petitioners applied for it on 17.9.2008 that it was furnished to them on 25.9.2008. Under Section 217 of the Act, an appeal must be filed within 15 days of the accrual of the cause of complaint. Under section 218(a) the cause of complaint is deemed to have accrued on the day when the complaint made to the Commissioner under Section 163 against the rateable value is disposed of. Although this day would be relevant for computation of limitation, an appeal can be 3 filed only after receipt of the speaking order. 4. Section 523 of the Act stipulates the manner in which time is to be computed for the purpose of limitation. Section 523 reads thus:- "Section "Section "Section 523. Computation of time. 523. Computation of time. 523. Computation of time. (1) In computing any limited time before or from or after any date or event which is appointed or allowed by or under this Act for the doing of any act or the taking of any proceeding, such time shall be taken as exclusive of the day of that date or of the happening of that event and as ending or commencing, as the case may be, at the end of the last preceding day, or the beginning of the next following day. (2) Where the limited time is to be computed from or after any date or event, the act or proceeding shall be done or taken at the latest on the last day of the limited time computed as aforesaid, unless the last day is a Sunday or a public holiday or unless, in the case or a proceeding to be taken before the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court, the said Court is closed on such last day, in which events any act or proceeding shall be deemed to be done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day after such Sunday, or after the close of such public holiday or on the first day when such Court reopens, as the case may be. (3) Where by this Act any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken on a certain day and such day happens to be a Sunday or a public holiday, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day after such Sunday or after the close of such public holiday. 4 Thus, the date on which the order received is not to be taken into account for calculating limitaion. Petitioners were informed of the order on 11.9.2008. Therefore that date need not be computed for the purposes of considering the limitation. An application was made for the certified copy on 17.9.2008. Thus, the period from 12.9.2008 to 17.9.2008 will have to be taken into account for computing the limitation. The period from 18.9.2008 to 25.9.2008 i.e. the date on which the copy was received, would have to be disregarded. Calculating further the days from 25.9.2008 onwards, the petitioners ought to have filed their appeal on 5th October, 2008. However, since the 5th October, 2008 was a Sunday, it has been filed on 6th October, 2008. Thus considering the provisions of Section 523, the appeal has been preferred within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 217. 5. Therefore, in my opinion, the impugned order suffers from infirmities and must be set aside. 6. Writ petition allowed. 7. Appeal to be registered and shall be decided in accordance with law after the petitioners comply with the necessary conditions of deposit, etc.