Vikash Kumar Vs. Bharti - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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 limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - this matter can be decided on merits after the parties are given adequate opportunity to lead their evidence as the impugned order is an interlocutory order and relates to grant of interim mainlenance only and fhil matter will be looked into by the trial court at the time when question concerning award of maintenance to the wife as well as to the cilild is finally decided.harphul singh brar, j.1. this is a petition under section 482 of the code o( criminal procedure against the interim order of maintenance passed by the chief judicial magistrate, jind wherein he had granted ad interim maintenance of rs. 200/- to the wife and a sum of rs. 100/- to the child. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the learned chief judicial magistrate ia liable to be set aside on two grounds, firstly that there is no provision for granting ad interim maintenance under the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the code) and secondly that the trial court hag made a reference in its order that there is evidence available on the record that the respondent-wife has refused to reside with the petitioner and that thcregpondents have sufficient means to maintain themselves. the learned counsel for tbe petitioner has cited sumer chand alias sumer nath v. sandhuran rani and ors., 1987 (2) recent criminal report 357 in defence of his plea that there is no provision for granting ad interim maintenance under the code. so far as the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned it is without any fores particularly in view of the law laid down by the supreme court in savitri v. gobind singh rawal, 1986(1) chandigarh law reporter, 331. the short question before the supreme court for consideration was that as to whether the magistrate before whom an application is made under section 125 of the code can make an interim order directing the person against whom the application is made under that section to pay reasonable maintenance to the applicant concerned pending disposal of the application.2. the question was finally answered is afflrmity and it was held by the supreme court as under :'having regard to the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the magistrate under section 125 of the code, we feel that the laid provision should be interpreted us conferring power by necessary implication on the magistrate to pass an order directing a person against whom an application is made under it to pay a reasonable sum by way of interim maintenance subject to the other conditions referred to therein pending final disposal of the application.'3. the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, thus, rejected. the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also without any force in so far as the validity of an order of interim maintenance is concerned. this matter can be decided on merits after the parties are given adequate opportunity to lead their evidence as the impugned order is an interlocutory order and relates to grant of interim mainlenance only and fhil matter will be looked into by the trial court at the time when question concerning award of maintenance to the wife as well as to the cilild is finally decided.4. for the foregoing reasons, i cannot pursuade myself to interfere under an extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of tha code with an interlocutory order of the chief judicial magistrate.5. the revision petition is, thus, dismissed.