Rajesh Kumar Vs. Anuradha Thakur - 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. - 4. the miscellaneous application as well as the main appeal stand disposed of.arvind kumar, j.1. this is an appeal preferred by the husband against the judgment dated 14.12.2002 passed by addl. district judge, chandigarh by dint of which his petition under section 13 of the hindu marriage act (for brevity 'the act') for divorce has been dismissed.2. in response to the notice of motion, respondent i.e. wife has appeared through her counsel. both the parties have moved an application for conversion of the instant appeal to one under section 13b of the act, for grant of divorce by mutual consent. registry is directed to number the same. the parties have also annexed a petition under section 13b of the act.3. from the above facts, it appears that both the parties have amicably settled the matrimonial dispute and are willing to apart each other. furthermore, considering the fact that the parties are litigating since 2001 and that no useful purpose will be served nor it will be in the interest of the parties that they should wait for another six months, their prayer for conversion of the instant appeal to one under section 13b of the act is allowed and the statutory period of 6 months is also waived off the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the court of permanent lok adliat, high court complex, chandigarh, on 1.5.2007 which shall further proceed with the matter and pass necessary order in accordance with law, without insisting upon the parties to wait for further six months.4. the miscellaneous application as well as the main appeal stand disposed of.