Kanwal NaIn Vs. Shashi Bala Alias Rachna - 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.jai singh sekhon, j.1. the petitioner is employed as conductor in delhi transport corporation and getting a net salary of rs. 1477.35 per month. he has to pay rs. 300/- per month to his wife shashi bala respondent by way of recurring maintenance allowance. an amount of about rs. 12,000/- is due from him as arrears of maintenance allowance. the revision petition of the husband was dismissed by this court vide order dated 23.10.1989 on merits, but notice was issued to the respondent-wife regarding the payment of arrears of maintenance allowance in instalments. the wife has filed the replication.2. in order to avoid the hardship to both the parties and keeping in view the income of the husband, the petitioner is directed to pay arrears of maintenance allowance in easy instalments to the tune of rs. 400/- per month. in case he commits default in payment of any of these instalments, the respondent shall be entitled to realise the amount in lump sum.3. this application is disposed of accordingly.