Parkash Chand Vs. State Bank of Patiala - 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. - - on the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants argued that the plaintiffs got ample opportunities to lead evidence and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs have closed the evidence after due consideration of his own when he was satisfied that he was completed the evidence in the case and this application has been filed simply to delay the proceedings of the case and does not lie and the plaintiff can not be allowed to fill up the lacuna. this case was instituted on 18.7.86, and issues were struck on 5.5.88 and the plaintiffs availed of numerous opportunities to lead their evidence and they closed their evidence in affirmative on 29.11.88 and after that the defendants were given opportunities to lead the evidence and thereafter the learned counsel for the plaintiffs when felt satisfied as the completion of evidence then he made statement for closing the evidence in rebuttal. plaintiff-petitioners had given list of witnesses, filed process fee as well as the diet money. trial court has thus clearly erred in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioners.ashok bhan, j. 1. plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for declaration challenging the promotion of defendant respondents no. 5 to 40 working in state bank of patiala. official defendants were arrayed as defendants no. 1 to 4. the suit was filed in the year 1986. plaintiff-petitioners closed their evidence on 29.11.1988 and the respondents closed their evidence on 12.1.1990. plaintiff-petitiones filed an application for amendment of the plaint which was allowed on 5.10.1990. with the amendment of the plaint, 11 additional issues were framed by the trial court on 13.11.1990. plaintiffs filed the list of witnesses, process fee and the diet money for summoning the witnesses. two of the witnesses were official witnesses including shri t. pandurang rao, who was the managing director of state bank of patiala at the relevant time. this witness had admitted that the office of respondent no. 1and was transferred to calcutta and is presently working as chairman of industrial reconstruction bank w.e.f. 4.2.1992. application was filed under order 16 rule 19 civil procedure code that he be exempted from personal appearance. this application was pending and thus witness was not examined. only one other official witness, who had been summoned was examined.2. on december 7, 1992, counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners made a statement that evidence of the plaintiff be closed. on 10.2.1992 an application was filed by the plaintiff-petitioners that the statement made by his counsel on 7.12.1992 was under misapprehension of facts and the order passed by the court ordering closure of the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioners dated 7.12.1992 be recalled. this application has been disposed of by the impugned order. trial court has not adverted to the facts which have been enumerated in this order. this application was rejected with the following observations made by the trial court:-'on the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants argued that the plaintiffs got ample opportunities to lead evidence and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs have closed the evidence after due consideration of his own when he was satisfied that he was completed the evidence in the case and this application has been filed simply to delay the proceedings of the case and does not lie and the plaintiff can not be allowed to fill up the lacuna. i have considered the submission of both the learned counsel for the parties. this case was instituted on 18.7.86, and issues were struck on 5.5.88 and the plaintiffs availed of numerous opportunities to lead their evidence and they closed their evidence in affirmative on 29.11.88 and after that the defendants were given opportunities to lead the evidence and thereafter the learned counsel for the plaintiffs when felt satisfied as the completion of evidence then he made statement for closing the evidence in rebuttal. in case this application is allowed, this amount to re-opening of the case as the case was already become very old. so i find no merit in the application and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.'trial court has proceeded to deal with the application as if the plaintiff petitioners were trying to fill up a lacuna. the second reason given is that the case was instituted in the year 1986 and the petitioners had closed their evidence on 21.11.1988 and they could not be given another opportunity to lead evidence. trial court has not adverted to the fact that 11 additional issues had been framed on 18.11.1991 on which the plaintiff-petitioners had to lead evidence. plaintiff-petitioners had given list of witnesses, filed process fee as well as the diet money. shri t. panduranga rao had not appeared in the witness box in spite of service. it was the duty of the court to get this witness summoned through the process of the court and examine him. there was no fault of the plaintiff-petitioners and under the circumstances their evidence could not be closed on 7.12.1992. the statement made by the counsel seems to have been made under some misapprehension of facts and the present application for recalling of the order of closure of evidence was filed after three days of the passing of the order on december 10, 1992. the application was filed by the same counsel. trial court has proceeded with the matter as if the plaintiff-petitioners had closed their evidence in rebuttal. in fact the stage of the giving evidence in rebuttal had not arisen in thus case as the plaintiff-petitioners were still leading their evidence in affirmative on the additional 11 issues. trial court has thus clearly erred in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioners.3. application filed by the plaintiff-petitioners for recalling order dated 7.12.1992 is allowed. plaintiffs-petitioners shall be (given sufficient opportunity to lead their evidence and t. panduranga rao, official witness be summoned through the process of the court to complete his attendance and appear as witness. it is, however, made clear that if this witness makes an application that he be examined on commission then the court shall pass appropriate orders keeping in view the circumstances prevailing at that stage.4. with this observation, this revision petition is allowed. parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on july 28 1993.