Limitation Act. Since the decision in Bai Manekbai v. Manekji A Kavasji(l) limited to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure. it is well settled that the operatio~ .of Art. 181 In is >-- that case Westropp, C.J. after referring to the corresponding Art. 178 in the second schedule to the Limitation Act of 1877 observed: B "An examination of all the other articles in the second schedule relating to "applications", that is to say applications therein contemplated are such of the Third division of that schedule, shows as are made that the ..... ~ under the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence it is natural to conclude that the applications referred to in Article ' c 178 are applications ejusdem generis, i.e., applications under the Code of Civil Procedure. The preamble of ~ the Act, moreover, purports to deal with 'certain applications' only, and not with al! applications." · This decision was followed in numerous cases and was approved in Hansraj Gupta v. Official Liquidator Dehra Dun, Mussourie ·Electric Tramway Company('). Having regard to these deciD sions, Das, J. said in Shah Mulchand & Co., v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. (3 ) : "This long catena of decisions may well be said to have as it were, added the word 'under the Code' in the first column of that Article." The Court held that the amendment of Arts. 158 and 178 and the illsertion of the words "under the Arbitration Act, 1940" in place of the words "under the Code of Civil ProE • cedure, 1908" did not alter the settled meaning of Art. 181. To tihe same effect is the decision in Bombay Gas Co. v. Gopal Bhiva. (') Following these decisions the Court held in Wazirchand Mahajan & Anr. v. Union of India(") India(") that an application under s. 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 not being an application under the Code! of Civil Procedure was not governed by F Art. 181. The High Court has come to the conclusion that an application under s. 20 of the Arbitration Act is governed by Art. 181 for the following reasons : Article 181 should be construed as if the words "under the Code" were added in it. The Arbitration Act, 1940 repealed paragraph 17 of the second schedule to the G Code and re-enacted it in s. 20 with minor modifications. That being so, s. 8 ( l) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applied and the implied reference in Art. 181 to paragraph 17 of the second schedule to the Code should be construed as a reference to s. 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. No different intention is to be found in the Arbitration Act, 1940 and there is nothing to indiH (1) [1880] I.L.R. 7 Born. 213, 214. (2) [1933] L.R. 60 I.A. 13, 20. -. (3) [1953] S.C.R. 351, 371. (4) [1964] 3 S.C.R. 709. (5) [1967] I S.C.R. 303.
