Smt. Anju Vs. Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division and ors. - 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. - 1 in the proceedings pending before the trial court was afforded six opportunities for her evidence and she having failed to.g.s. garg, j.1. heard. petitioner who is respondent no.1 in the proceedings pending before the trial court was afforded six opportunities for her evidence and she having failed to. conclude her evidence, the trial court by its order dated 8.8.1996 closed her evidence. a few days later, the petitioner moved an application under order 18 rule 17-a of the code of civil procedure seeking permission to produce additional evidence. the trial court again considered this application and by detailed reasoned order dated 22.8.1996 dismissed the same. aggrieved there against the petitioner has filed the present revision.2. during the course of hearing, it could not be disputed that the petitioner was afforded six opportunities for producing her evidence and she did not conclude her evidence and thus the trial court closed her evidence by order. concededly, neither the list of witnesses was filed on or before the date fixed for evidence of the petitioner nor any witness was sought to be summoned through court. on one of the dates fixed for evidence of the petitioner, the trial court ordered dasti summons but the petitioner did not collect the dasti summonses and it was thereafter that evidence of the petitioner was closed. i thus see no ground to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of my jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution of india.3. as regards additional evidence, learned counsel submitted that evidence sought to be produced was of utmost importance and, therefore, in the interest of justice the petitioner be afforded an opportunity to produce the same and the litigant could not be allowed to suffer on account of negligence of the counsel. on a consideration of the matter, i find that nothing has been brought on record to bring the case for production of additional evidence within the four corners of the provisions as contained in order 18 rule 17-a of the code. it has also now been shown that the evidence sought to be produced by way of additional evidence was not in the knowledge of the petitioner or it could not be produced despite due diligence or could not be produced because of certain reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. as already noticed, the petitioner had been afforded six opportunities for her evidence and she took no steps to produce the evidence now sought to be produced by way of additional evidence or any other evidence except one or two witnesses. she herself has not even stepped into the witness box as her own witness so far nor there is a prayer in that behalf in the application seeking production of additional evidence. in this view of the matter, i see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court. revision is consequently dismissed.