High Court of Punjab and HaryanaRSA/6/1994allowed

Balwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2025-03-10Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl13 pages

$ % &%'

( " #

& ) * % + ,"# - + "

) .

/ !"- + "

) . - *- &%'

(

! " # !%

" '%!/ 1 + "" " 2 ##

,% "

" '%!/ # (3 " %( 4%!- 555 ,

- 2 6#% + "" " % (3 " #

( - 3 " ! % "

" % (3 " #

(3 8 ,% "

%(/ "

" # - " /#%! ""

! " % (3 " #

/ 3 # 919 + " /#%! - " #

#%"/ "" ! " %

/ " %/%

+ 5 %(/ "

% " &%'

(- "%- " #

+ / 3 % 1 ,&, 1 " "

( % 3 :"( ;:& #

# !

! " / "

+ ( :"( ;:& ;:& < !/ "

( :"( ;:& 5 %(/ "

# + / "

# "

+! ( " # "

+ ( / #

" #

- "" "

( " #!

" / (% "

" ( / 5 !% "

" % " /" # " # % 1 ,&, =% ( : % # >? " 8/ -

# " '%!/ " .@( %# / ,% Disha Constructions and others Vs. State of Goa and another, # 2012(1) SCC 690 #% "

" % 19 / ! 9 8 ,% "

% " %(/ "

" # - (' " # < " / "%- % / " # 5 % " %(/ "

,% "

" " % +% " #

" 2 ##

,% - "% ! " " %- "

3 " # - ""

+ -

(3 " &%'

( ""

+ ( 8 ,% - " " "

- "

## " # !%

%(/ "

" '%!/ " 2 ##

,% "

5 %(/ "

" # - " /#%! "

( # 919 + "" #%"/ "" ! " %

/ "

%/%

+ "

(

" #

( "

"" ! / !+ %! %

"" ( "

! 3 / 5 %(/ "

" 2 ##

,% "

!" 3 ( + "

" % "

919 " " /#%! # "%- ! " % 19 ( (3 !" 3 "

!" 3 / " % #

A" ,% "

" % " # "

# % " # # (< "

< " #

- / " " / %/ ""

# " "

,% "

+ ( % 3 :"( "" "

+ ( # % % ! " % !%/ "

+ ( < ) < BC >

+ 3?

) < B C >

+ 3?

" # "

" '%!/ " 2 ##

+ ( " '%!/ "

,% "

- + ( %#" " " 5 #% "

- " <!

,% &%'

( 3- 2 6#% #- "

" "

919 # (3 " *

) ! - &%'

( 3- )%< /#! " #

3 "" !

" %

/ " %/%

+ %# " #

% " ! "

" #

( 3"! +

(+ "

" "

3 ( # % ! " %# # -

- %

+ A" % ## (3 " (3 !

/ 5 % ( + "

# (' " # " % (! ( (3 " / D " ( # !- "

,% "

/ "

! % "1.

Whether the order dt. 10.7.87 passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar is illegal, null and void etc.? OPP 2.

Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit?OPD 3.

Whether a valid and legal notice u/s 80 C.P.C. was served by the plaintiff upon the defendants/State? OPP. 4.

Relief."

# %

" (+ % " "

% " #

( / (' " / "

( < " # 5% E +% " #

"%- 919 " (

- %

+ 5% E

+% " #

" "

" ,% "

'% 3 " % ;+ % E +% " #

" ! " %- / " !

% 1 ,&, ;:&- #

# ;:& ;:&

< !/ ;:&

" "

7 # "

3 + (% " + (3 " #

5 + " !

" %- " % "

919- ""

" %(' / "

!- " "

" #

" / "" (3 " 7 # " "

( !

9 A" 2 ##

,% - "% + ! " ! % E - 3 (3 ( +! "

" % ( (3 -

" '%!/ "

/ " % " #

5 ( + (3 " 2 ##

,% "

" % " #

919 " " % 19 "

"% " % ( (3 (3 1 3 1 A" # / 3 =%

( " ,% % "Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant was barred by limitation or was it within limitation, as benefit of mandatory notice under Section 80 of CPC was required to be given to the plaintiff/appellant in view of Section 15 of the Limitation Act, 1963?"

! " " # - % ( 3 " + # + 1>?

1>? ,&,- "" "

( "!"

!" (3

,% "

- # % " ( "80. Notice 5 [(1)][Save as otherwise provided in sub5section (2), no suits [shall be instituted] against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir)] or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official

capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been [delivered to, or left at the office of (a) in the case of a suit against the Central Government, [except where it relates to a railway], a Secretary to that Government;

[(b)] in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to railway, the General Manager of that railway;] (bb) in the case of suit against the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Chief Secretary to that Government or any other officer authorized by that Government in this behalf;] (c) in the case of a suit against [any other State Government], a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the district;

and, in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. [(2) A suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, may be instituted, with the leave of the Court, without serving any notice as required by sub5section (1); but the Court shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise, except after giving to the Government or public officer, as the case may be , a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit: Provided that the Court shall, if it is satisfied, after hearing the parties, that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying

with the requirements of sub5section (1).

xxx xxxC # %

" (+ % " "

3 % % " *+ / #%( # 3 #% # ( (3 %" #%( "

# 3- " % 3 =% ( # (3 /" ! %( # + " :# 1>? % ## 3 " / % ! (! %!" A" %( % ## 3 " # - " % "" "

( " #

" 919 "%- " 3 % !3 # '

+ " ,% %!" >? " 8/ - - "" "

( "!"

!" (3 ,% "

- # % % "15. Exclusion of time in certain other cases.- (1)In computing the period of limitation of any suit or application for the execution of a decree, the institution or execution of which has been stayed by injunction or order, the time of the continuance of the injunction or order, the day on which it was issued or made, and the day on which it was withdrawn, shall be excluded.

(2)In computing the period of limitation for any suit of which notice has been given, or for which the previous consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority is required, in accordance with the requirements of any law for the time being in force, the period of such notice or, as the case may be, the time required for obtaining such consent or sanction

shall be excluded.

Explanation.-In excluding the time required for obtaining the consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority, the date on which the application was made for obtaining the consent or sanction and the date of receipt of the order of the Government or other authority shall both be counted. Xxx xxx"

# %

" (+ # + % " "

" /#%! " # 3 % "" "

( !+ " =% / 3

" / (! - " # %" =% ( : % A" .F( %# / ,% " Disha Constructions and others >%# ? "

( + "

" # # # >? " 8/ % ( "

/#%! " #

- " # - % ( =% ( / : % " "

( !+ " % "" " " 3 % ( " - + " /" " :# 3 " 3 - # + "

( !+ " " # A" + # " '%!/ # % " ( "12. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the notice under Section 80 was admittedly given on 195252009 which is within the period of limitation and the same was received on 275252009 and two months from the date of receipt expired on 275452009. The High Court has held, in our view erroneously, that since the suit was filed on 245105 2009, which is beyond 305952009, the appellant5plaintiffs are not entitled to the benefit of exclusion statutorily provided

under Section 15(2) of the Act and the suit is barred by limitation. The said interpretation of the High Court is erroneous in view of the fact that if the notice under Section 80 had been given, say, on 295952009, in that case the appellants according to High Court's interpretation, would have been given the benefit of exclusion of time after 305952009. Just because the appellants gave the notice before the expiry of the period of limitation, the benefit which is given under Section 15(2) of the Act cannot be taken away. We are of the view that the said period of two months must be computed and benefit of exclusion of the said two months must be given to the appellants even if they had given the said notice within the period of limitation. If the appellants had given the notice after the expiry of period of limitation, say, after 305952009, then possibly they could not have been given the benefit. 13.

In this connection, we may refer to the decision of this Court in Union of India v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., where in a somewhat similar situation, this Court has held as follows: (SCC p.464. Para 14) "14. ........Any circumstance, legal or factual, which inhibits entertainment or consideration by the court of the dispute on the merits comes within the scope of the section and a liberal touch must inform the interpretation of the Limitation Act which deprives the remedy of one who has a right".

xxx xxx xxx

16. In our view, proper interpretation of Section 15(2) of the Act would be that in computing the period of limitation, the period of notice, provided notice is given within the limitation period, would be mandatorily excluded. That would mean a suit, for which period of limitation is three years, would be within limitation even if it is filed within two months after three

years, provided notice has been given within the limitation period. In such a case, the period of notice cannot be counted concurrently with the period of limitation. If it is done, then the period of notice is not excluded. Any other interpretation would be contrary to the express mandate of Section 15(2) of the Act.

17. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and we hold that the suit is within the period of limitation......." 5 " (+ - " .!" ,% "

!+ " ( " /" "

" "

" " % ( ( (3 - "+ - " .F( %# / ,% "

( + "

'% ( % "

" "

!+ " ( " :# 3 # - " ( % >? " 8/ % ( <

" ( "

( / 3 !+ A"

" (+ '%!/ % + " #

% - ## / " / "" "

+ ( 3

6 " E

" 3 "

( ("

" # 5 " # - #% "

919- " /#%! ""

" %(' / "

! " % "" ! " %

/ " %/%

+ #

" #

1 >;:&?

(3 "

# !

! " / % 3 :"( ;:& ;:& " < !/ !

! " / % 3 :"( ;:& 5 #

+ #

" #

" # - "" &%'

(

" *

) ! - &%'

( 3 "

( + " % 1 " ,&, " # / "

" " / 5 " /- " + / / #

"%!" "

" +

3 " !

3 " % 1 " ,&, (! "

! 5 "%

## "

/ " (+ + /- " # " % 1 " ,&, / &

" #

# % " ( B5.

That the defendants were served with a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The copy of the notice, postal receipts and acknowledgments dues are attached herewith. No reply has been received. Hence this suit." &

" / # % " ( "5.

That the para no.5 of the plaint is admitted but the validity and legality of the notice u/S 80 CPC is challenged." A"

,% "

3 % - ""

" # +

3 !

3 " % 1 ,&,- +% " #

<! " %/ ;:& ;:&

( + "

" + # % (3 " # " 3 A" ! " % "

/ 3 ( + (3 " 5 ##

,% 5

#% "

" " # " &%'

( " *

) ! - &%'

( 3

"%- %/( %# " #

- " <!

" 919 # (3 " #

+- % 1 " ,&, 5 + " /- " #

" ( : % " # - "" /" " " # + " 8/ -

+ "

(3 " .F( %# / ,% Disha Constructions and others >%# ? ) + -

#% "

" !

# " :# 3 " # " 3 "

!! " 919 %

# 9 " ( /" # - " # " % 1 " ,&,- % 3 "

+ ( !+ "

" " %- "" "

( / 3 19- % ( "

A" =%

/ #

#" 1 " '%!/ +% "

" # 9

3- % ( + / "

(' < (3 " # " #

3- # % " # " / A" 5 ##

,% - "% " (!

3 ( - (3 + % 3# - "% ! " # " !

% 1 " ,&,- "

( + "

" % ( (3 A" '%!/ " 5 ##

+ (

5 %

( + / "

! " " %- "" / " +% "

(3 "

,% - (3 " 5 ##

,% !

3 " '%!/ " 5 ##

+ (

1 5 % ( + "

" # !%

( % " &%'

( ,% - 1 % ,&, "

#" 9 " '%!/ " ,%

" >2+ 4%! "? " .@( %# / ,% " Pankajakshi (dead) through legal representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others and other connected matters # (2016) 6 Supreme Court Cases 157- ( + "

9>? " , ,+ & % >//? - 9- "

## " &%'

( ,% - % %

" &%'

( ,% # + "

% " .!" ,% / + 3 #

(3 3 ,% %( " .!" ,% 3 " ! % / " %" ! % - ! % E> ? " " 3

/ %/ % ! "

+! "

5 " # - " '%!/ " 5 ##

G#! + " (+ %/ - " #

" '%!/ " 5 ##

,% 1 " '%!/ "

,% " % (3 "

" / / (3 "

,% !!"

Pawan/Davinder #$%&$%'()%*+,-./'%*(0-%12 %(/0 #$%&$%''%)0'&*34%2 %(/0