Simar Pal Singh Vs. Hakam Singh

- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of..........document will not supplant the requirement of proof in a manner known to law.3. the hon'ble supreme court has laid down in its decision bipin shantilal panchal v. state of gujarat (2001) 3 s.c.c. 1 while setting out the procedure for receiving documents, when an objection is taken during the trial. the hon'ble supreme court has castigated the practice of holding up trial on objections taken at the time of tendering documents in evidence. inviting courts to pass orders on objections has been termed by the hon'ble supreme court as 'archaic practice'. that decision was rendered while dealing with receipt of a document under criminal procedure code, but the procedure laid down in the said judgment has been adopted in several other cases even for documents tendered under the civil procedure code.4. the order of the court below is set aside and the petitioner shall be permitted to adduce such evidence as he thinks necessary to lay a foundation for receipt of secondary evidence and the fact of loss or otherwise would be tested in the cross-examination and an inference or reliance on such a document could be taken up for consideration at the time of final disposal of the suit.5. the civil revision petition is allowed in the above terms.