Balwinder Kaur Vs. Kashmir Singh - 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. - by which the defence of the respondent-husband was struck off as he had failed to comply with the order of this court dated january 14, 1993 whereby he was directed to pay maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses.g.c. garg, j.1. learned counsel for the appellant has brought to my notice an order dated april 22, 1993 passed by amarjeet choudhary, j. by which the defence of the respondent-husband was struck off as he had failed to comply with the order of this court dated january 14, 1993 whereby he was directed to pay maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. learned counsel further informed that the litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite have not been paid by the respondent-husband even till today. he consequently prays that in view of the law laid down in shrimati swarno devi v. piara ram, 1975 h.l.r. 15, shrimati parkasho v. lachhman singh, 1977 h.l.r. 334 and amarjit kaur v. sohan singh, 1979 p.l.r. 749, this appeal be allowed.2. it may be noticed here that the appellant-wife filed a petition under section 13 of the hindu marriage act against her husband, respondent herein, for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. the said petition having been dismissed, she filed the present appeal. on an application under section 24 of the act filed by the wife, the respondent-husband was directed to pay rs. 500/- per month as maintenance pendente lite from the date of the application and rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses to the appellant, by order dated january 14, 1993. this amount has not been paid and as noticed above, it was on this count that the defence of the respondent-husband was struck off by order dated april 22, 1993. once the defence of the husband is struck off. the wife is entitled to the grant of relief as claimed by her. consequently, this appeal is allowed and marriage between the appellant and the respondent is dissolved by a decree of divorce under section 13 of the hindu marriage act in view of the law laid down in the judicial precedents noticed above. no costs.3. learned counsel for the respondent has not put in appearance to controvert the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant.