Karni Singh Vs. Santo - 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.g.r. majithia, j.1. the appellant husband filed a petition under section 13 of the hindu marriage act (for short, the act) against his wife for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. the petition was dismissed by the matrimonial court on december 3, 1990. aggrieved against the decree of the matrimonial court, the husband came up in appeal in this court and the same was registered as p.a.o. no. 23-m of 1991. the wife moved an application under section 24 of the act for fixation of maintenance pendente-lite. this application was registered as civil miscellaneous no. 3971 c-ii of 1992. this application was disposed of by the bench of mr. agnihotri and b.s. nehra, jj., on october 28, 1991 and the following order was passed :'admitted.after hearing learned counsel for the parties, c.m. is allowed with interim direction that rs. 600/- per month be paid by the appellant to the respondent from the date of filing the application. arrears to be cleared within two months. if the appellant has been paying rs. 300/- per month during the pendency of this appeal under section 125 cr. p. c. that amount would be adjusted in the payment. the amount of maintenance shall be remitted by the appellant to the respondent by money order by 10(h of every month.'2. civil miscellaneous no. 3971-cii of 1992 has been moved by the respondent for dismissing the appeal on the ground that the order, dated october 28, 1991, referred to above, has not been complied with. even at the time of hearing the civil miscellaneous, the learned counsel for the appellant was not in a position to commit if the order of payment of maintenance pendente lite could be complied with. in these circumstances, i strike down the ground of attack made in the petition under section 3 of the act. the resultant effect would be that the appeal has to be dismissed. i order accordingly.