AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 840 ::2008 AIR SCW 8142 ::(2008) 2 CLR 620 (SC) ::2008 (2) CLR 620 ::(2008) 2 WLC(SC)CVL 598 ::2008 (9) SCC 306 ::2009 (1) RecCivR 879.2 ::(2009) 1 RecCivR 879(2) ::2008 (11) Scale 52 ::(2008) 5 AllMR 462 (SC) ::2008 (5) All MR 462 ::2009 (1) MPLJ 37 ::2009 (1) Mah LJ 43 ::2008 (7) MadLJ534 ::2008 (8) SRJ 454

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Madras)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): A. K. Mathur, Tarun Chatterjee , JJ

(A) Constitution of India , Art.133— Concurrent findings of fact - Not shown that said finding were either perverse or arbitrary - Absence of serious challenge to aforesaid finding of fact - No interference by Supreme Court. (Para 5) (B) Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , S.31, Art.96— Applicability of Art.96 - Suits barred under Limitation Act, 1908 - Could not be filed by taking plea that same was within limitation under 1963 Act. (Para 19) (C) Wakf Act (43 of 1995) , S.107, S.112— Scope of S.107 - S.107 cannot revive barred claim or extinguished rights. 2000 (2) Mad LW 66 and C. M. P. Nos. 3200 and 3201 of 2000 in S. A. Nos. 972 and 973 of 1986, D/-24-04-2000 (Mad.), Reversed. General Clauses Act (10 of 1897) , S.6— When the right stood extinguished, Section 107 cannot have the effect of reviving the extinguished right/claim. No statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation until its language is such that would require such conclusion. The exception to this rule is enactments dealing with procedure. This would mean that the law of limitation being a procedural law, is retrospective in operation in the sense that ....