"7. The period of limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure the quiet of the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. The statute i.e. the Limitation Act is founded on the most salutary principle of general and public policy and incorporates a principle of great benefit to the community. It has, with great propriety, been termed a statute of repose, peace and justice. The statute discourages litigation by burying in one common receptacle all the accumulations of past times which are unexplained and have not from lapse of time become inexplicable. It has been said by John Voet, with singular felicity, that controversies are limited to a fixed period of time, lest they should be immortal while men are mortal. (Also see France B. Martins v. Mafalda Maria Teresa Rodrigues1.)
8. Bar of limitation does not obstruct the execution. It bars the remedy. (See V. Subba Rao v. Secy. to Govt. Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Govt. of A.P.2)
9. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So, a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for legislatively fixed period of time."
8. Law of limitation is intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and to avoid exposure to risk of litigation to a litigant for an indefinite period on future unforeseen events.
Allahabad High Court
M/S H.K. Consumer Cooperative ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 20 December, 2016
Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
1. The petitioner was earlier fair price shop dealer of Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. By order dated 10.10.2010, his agreement of dealership of said fair price shop was cancelled. Thereafter, he filed memorandum of appeal after about five years in year 2015 before the respondent no.-4, that was heard and dismissed on the ground of appeal being time barred approximately by five years and for which no satisfactory explanation was submitted. Said order dated 20.6.2016 of dismissal of said appeal has been challenged through present writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited Naya Bans Saraswati Sahkari Gram Nirman Samiti Ltd., Ghaziabad Vs. State of U.P. And others, 2016 (5) AWC 4878, and pointed out that the paragraph 10 of this judgment passed by Single Bench of this Court. His further submission was that delay in filing appeal was caused because against the order of cancellation, petitioner had filed any civil suit, after dismissal of which he had preferred review application, that was dismissed in year 2013. After it, when legal opinion was given to him, he filed appeal in year 2015. His submissions was that the petitioner has no knowledge of legal provisions and had acted in accordance with legal opinion given to him by his lawyers. His explanation should have been treated as satisfactory by lower appellate court, who had not considered it properly and passed impugned order dated 20.6.2016, which should be quashed.
3. These submissions, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, are after perusal, found unacceptable. The petitioner is expected to know the law and the ignorance of law cannot be accepted as satisfactory explanation.
4. In this particular case, the petitioner had been approaching the courts for about three years from 2010 to 2013 and must have knowledge by that time that he should have preferred appeal, instead of approaching courts of wrong jurisdiction, because during this period his case and review application had been dismissed. Inspite of it, he delayed the matter and preferred appeal before respondent no.-4 in 2015, regarding which no satisfactory explanation was given before said appellate court. Even before this Court, there is no satisfactory explanation of this long delay.
5. So far the judgment of ''Naya Bans Saraswati Sahkari Gram Nirman Samiti Ltd' (supra) is concerned, this is also not going to help the petitioner's submissions. In this judgment, Single Bench of this Court had held that the length of delay is also not very much material in certain circumstances when other side may be compensated in terms of money etc. In present matter, this is not a case where other side may be compensated in terms of money because the relief sought deals with public convenience and public interest. The facts and circumstances mentioned in said judgment are entirely different from the matter before this Court. This is not a case where inconvenience of public due to overt acts of petitioner may be compensated by money.
6. Apart from it, this finding made in impugned judgment dated 20.6.2016 is found correct that petitioner had not given any satisfactory explanation. Said finding is hereby confirmed on the basis of above discussion. This Court finds no reason to interfere in such finding based on facts.
7. In Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn., (2005) 7 SCC 510 the Apex Court had held:
"7. The period of limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure the quiet of the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. The statute i.e. the Limitation Act is founded on the most salutary principle of general and public policy and incorporates a principle of great benefit to the community. It has, with great propriety, been termed a statute of repose, peace and justice. The statute discourages litigation by burying in one common receptacle all the accumulations of past times which are unexplained and have not from lapse of time become inexplicable. It has been said by John Voet, with singular felicity, that controversies are limited to a fixed period of time, lest they should be immortal while men are mortal. (Also see France B. Martins v. Mafalda Maria Teresa Rodrigues1.)
8. Bar of limitation does not obstruct the execution. It bars the remedy. (See V. Subba Rao v. Secy. to Govt. Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Govt. of A.P.2)
9. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So, a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for legislatively fixed period of time."
8. Law of limitation is intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and to avoid exposure to risk of litigation to a litigant for an indefinite period on future unforeseen events.
9. In view of above, finding no error or irregularity in the impugned order dated 20.6.2016, the relief sought through present writ petition is declined. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.12.2016
No comments:
Post a Comment