Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1919 (PNJ)

Amar Singh v. State Of Punjab

2006-05-03

AJAI LAMBA, S.S.NIJJAR

body2006
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of R.S.A. No. 1927 of 1997, R.S.A. Nos. 1967, 2083 of 1995, R.S.A. Nos. 3222, 3223 of 1996 and R.S.A. No. 1114 of 1997 as all the appeals raise identical questions of law with regard to limitation prescribed for filing a suit seeking the relief of declaration. Since in all the appeals, the suit has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation, we shall notice the facts only from R.S.A. No. 1927 of 1994 for the purposes of this judgment. 2. The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking declaration that the following orders: (i) No. Nill dated 5.3.76 stopping one increment with cumulative effect; (ii) No. 2075-82/TC dated 18.4.77 stopping one increment with cumulative effect; (iii) No. 7617-19/EOC dated 12.9.77 stopping two increments with cumulative effect; (iv) No. 1326 dated 30.6.78 stopping three increments with cumulative effect; (v) No. 1327 dated 30.6.78 stopping three increments with cumulative effect; (vi) No. 19583-88 dated 15.9.78 stopping four increments with cumulative effect; (vii) No. 3344 dated 14.12.78 stopping one increment with cumulative effect; (viii) No. 1860-63 dated 3.12.79 stopping one increment with cumulative effect; (ix) No. 8378-81/T.A. dated 16.3.83 stopping one increment with cumulative effect; (x) No. 54-57/T.A. dated 9.1.84 stopping one increment cumulative effect; (xi) No. 64-67/T.A. dated 9.1.84 stopping one increment cumulative effect; (xii) No. 3374-77/TA dated 23.7.84 stopping two increments with cumulative effect; were null and void as they have been passed in violation of rules of natural justice. 3. The respondents had taken a plea that the suit is barred by limitation. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Civil Court. It was held that the orders had been passed in breach of rules of natural justice. 4. On Issue No. 2, as to whether plaintiffs, suit is time barred, the Trial Court held that the impugned orders are void and they can be challenged at any time. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Trial Court relied on two judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Syed Qamarali 1967 S.L.R. 226(S.C.) and Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1977 S.LW.R. 447 (S.C.). 5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the respondents filed appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Amritsar. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Trial Court relied on two judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Syed Qamarali 1967 S.L.R. 226(S.C.) and Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1977 S.LW.R. 447 (S.C.). 5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the respondents filed appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Amritsar. The Lower Appellate Court held that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, declaratory suit can be filed within the prescribed of 3 years even though the order may be void. The appeal was accepted. The suit of the plaintiff was ordered to be dismissed. 6. The plaintiff i.e. appellant challenged the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court in this regular second appeal. The R.S.A. was admitted to the D.B. 7. Today when the matter came up for hearing, we have heard counsel for the parties at length. 8. In our opinion, the controversy raised in this R.S.A. is no longer res integra. The matter is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Haryana in which it has been categorically held that suit for declaration has to be filed within the period prescribed under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Division Bench relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in Gurdev Singhs case (supra) which were as follows: The party aggrieved by the invalidity of the order has to approach the Court for relief of the declaration that the order against him is inoperative and not binding upon him. He must approach the Court within the prescribed period of limitation. 9. In the present case, 12 orders have been passed, all stopping the increments of the appellant with or without cumulative effect. The first order is passed on 5.3.1976 and the 12th order is passed on 23.7.1984. The appellant instituted the civil suit on 12.4.1990. The suit of the plaintiff is therefore clearly barred by limitation and had been rightly ordered to be dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court. 10. At this stage, we may notice that Ms. The first order is passed on 5.3.1976 and the 12th order is passed on 23.7.1984. The appellant instituted the civil suit on 12.4.1990. The suit of the plaintiff is therefore clearly barred by limitation and had been rightly ordered to be dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court. 10. At this stage, we may notice that Ms. Neelofer A. Parveen, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab cites judgments in support of the submission that the Lower Appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Learned Counsel relied on Judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Punjab State and Anr. v. Darshan Kumar 1995 Suppl.(4) S.C.C. 220 and State of Punjab and Ors. v. Rajinder Singh, Conductor 1999 S.C.C. (L & S) 664. In both the cases, it has been held that the suit having been tiled after a period of three years would be barred by virtue of the provisions contained in Article 113 of the Limitation Act. 11. In Rajinder Singhs case (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated the proposition of law laid down in Gurdev Singhs case (supra) in the following words: After conducting department enquiry by proceedings dated 10-12-1981, two increments with cumulative effect were stopped. The suit was filed on 15.1.1988. Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act 21 of 1963 prescribes three years limitation from the date of the order, to seek a declaration that the impugned order was illegal and did not bind him. The residuary provision is Article 113 also equally prescribes the limitation of three years. The limitation starts running from the date of passing of the order withholding increments. On expiry of three years from that date, the limitation expires by efflux of time. Consequently, the suit gets barred by limitation. Section 3 of the Limitation Act directs the court to take notice of the bar of limitation before proceeding further. This legal position was set at rest by the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh. The suit of the respondent is barred by limitation. 12. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this R.S.A. The suit has been rightly dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court. 13. R.S.A. is dismissed. The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is affirmed. 12. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this R.S.A. The suit has been rightly dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court. 13. R.S.A. is dismissed. The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is affirmed. The suit of the plaintiff is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.