Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.72 seconds)Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer And ... on 30 March, 1961
12. As would appear from the above discussion, there is sharp difference of opinion of different High Courts with regard to computation of starting point of limitation for a petition for setting aside an ex parte order of maintenance. The reasons assigned in support of conflicting views are equally weighty. Both the views can, however, be reconciled. In case where there is fraudulent suppression of service of notice or non-service of notice on the person against whom an ex parte order of maintenance has been made, he shall irreparably suffer, unless limitation is computed from the date of his knowledge of the order. If in such a case limitation shall be computed from the date of the order, parties shall be encouraged to suppress service of notice in collusion with the Process Server and/or the Postman, as the case may be, so as to have an easy victory against the opponent and acquire an ex parte order of maintenance. In such a case grave injustice would result for the person against whom the ex parte order of maintenance is made, because he will be left without any remedy. Therefore, as rightly pointed out in AIR 1961 SC 1500 (supra) knowledge of the party effected by the adverse order either actual or constructive is an essential requirement of fair-play and the natural justice. So, on material available on record, if the court will come to the conclusion that there has been fraudulent suppression of service of notice or no effective service of notice of the maintenance proceeding on the person against whom an ex parte order of, maintenance has been made, limitation for a petition for setting aside such order shall be the date of knowledge of the order and not the date of the order. But there may be other cases such as illness or other sufficient cause for which a party may not be able to appear in the court despite proper service of notice. When an ex parte order of maintenance is passed against him in such circumstances and for any sufficient cause he is unable to make a petition for setting aside the ex parte order within three months from the date of the order, there may not be legal difficulty for making such a petition even beyond three months of the date of the order, if a petition for condonation of limitation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, accompanies such petition. In such a case if the court would be satisfied that sufficient cause existed for non-appearance of the party on the date of bearing, then there would be no impediment to condone limitation and accept the petition for setting aside the ex parte order of maintenance under Section 126(2), proviso. These instances are only illustrative, but not exhaustive. But in normal course, limitation is to be computed from the date of the order.
Zohra Begum Alias Aysha Begum vs Mohamed Ghouse Qadri Qadeeri And Anr. on 23 February, 1965
In AIR 1966 A.P. 50, Sohra Begum alias Aysha Begun v. Mohamed Ghouse Sadri and Anr., Jaganmohan Reddy, J. (as he then was) referred to AIR 1961 S. C. 1500, Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Anr., and interpreted Section 488(6), proviso which is pari materia Section 126(2), proviso and held that an application for setting aside an ex parte order of maintenance can be filed within three months from the date of knowledge thereof.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 125 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 128 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 12 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Joginder Singh Surmukh Singh vs Smt. Balkaran Kaur on 2 April, 1971
A Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in 1972 Cri.L.J. 93, Joginder Singh Gurmukh Singh v. Smt. Balkaran Kaur, also interpreted Section 483 (b), proviso of the old Code and held that a husband, against whom an ex parte order has been made fixing maintenance allowance is entitled to reckon the period of limitation of three months from the date of knowledge of the order for an application made to set aside that order on the ground that he had neither wilfully avoided Service nor wilfully neglected to attend the court and pleads want of the knowledge of the order Teminus a quo for reckoning the period of limitation in such a case is not the date of the order. It was further laid down that a decision adversely affecting a party does not come into force before the party acquires knowledge thereof, either actual or constructive, and this rule is of universal application, notwithstanding the fact that the legislature is fully aware of the implication flowing from the use of the word " knowledge" in statutes prescribing limitation, as is clear from the language exployed in Article 123 of the Limitation Act. The awareness of the legislature about the significance of the knowledge of a Party about a decision affecting it must thus be held not to be a relevant consideration in the matter of interpretation of a statute of limitation. It was also held that a party aggrieved by an ex parte order passed under Section 488 of the Code may be entitled to apply for the extention of the period of limitation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which does not appear to be a relevant consideration for the purpose of interpreting Section 488(c), proviso of the old Code.