- 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.....orderswatanter kumar, j.cm. 8339/cii99:1. this application, as framed, is not maintainable before this court. however, learned counsel appearing for the parties are agreed that the appeal may be dismissed with liberty to file a petition for dissolution of marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent within the purview and scope of the provisions of section 13-b of the hindu marriage act. annexure-a to this application, copy of the compromise duly signed by the parties, would obviously be the basis of filing the appropriate petition. the mediators, who are present in court and whose names have been mentioned in the compromise, annexure-a, to this application, state that a sum of rs. 2,10,000/- has been given to them, which would be handed over to the wife in court on presentation of a proper petition.2. in view of the joint statement of the parties, this application as well as the main appeal is dismissed with liberty to the parties to file a petition under section 13-b of the hindu marriage act before the court of competent jurisdiction.