Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The next submission was on the question of limitation. It was submitted that the application made by the plaintiff-respondents was in any event barred by limitation. Reference was made in this connection to Section 3(2)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Limitation Act) which provides as follows : --

"An application by Notice of Motion in an article is made when the application is presented to the appropriate officer of that Court."

It is submitted that in view of the same in this matter such an application for restoration could be made only by a Notice of Motion. The Notice of Motion in support of the application for re-calling the order was taken out on 3rd of Sept. 1985 and it was made returnable on 9th Sept. 1985. It was submitted that the Notice of Motion being taken out on 3rd of Sept. 1985 the application would be deemed to have been made at the earliest on that date and not on any day earlier to the same. So far as the question of the application having been "noted as made" earlier on the 20th of August 1985 it was submitted that in view of the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 as specified above, the application is deemed to have been made on the date the Notice of Motion is taken and presented before the proper office and merely because it was 'noted as made' at an earlier date does not improve the position. In this context reliance was placed on P. C. Ray (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. B. Bose Private Ltd. (1967) 71 Cal WN 230 (paragraphs 1 and 11 to 17). It was submitted that in view of the same, the other decisions before the said decision and before the Limitation Act 1963 came into force, are no longer good law.