State Of Punjab And Others v. Gurdip Singh
!!"#$% &%
% '#( #$ % )* ( '# + , - )'#'.#/ ( '#+ 0 1 !'"( ( '#+ 1 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced?
YES + 23
)"!
" #$ %#%$
)(
( ,&
& % .
% #" // &
%% #" //
1 2 3$#4$ #% #$ //% 5 # %### ' 6!
&
! !
# %###
& %# "
7 )(
&
8
,
0
!
7 '
& !
# %###
& %# "
& "
&
!
& 0
&
!
, - 7 '
8
! "#
! 7 ' !&
0
&
!
;
< '
,
"
,
& ,
# %###
= 9) +
& ' = /33 & !
&
-
&
&
,
!
&
// &
= 9) +
& ' = /33
/ > = " 93 =
& !
&
4
, 4
> = 9 %-)%+ =
, !
&
& , !
& 1
& & , ! &
, !
!
1 &
&
, 1 ,
,
,
)
+ = /;# # > !
, & &
! &
! >
&
!
% &'
( )*
+! "#
&
& !! &
1
< &
1
!
!
% 2,
! "#
'
8 =
8
"7. The crucial question is: whether the suit is barred by limitation ? Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [for short, the ''Act''] postulates that the limitation can be pleaded. If any proceedings have been laid after the expiry of the period of limitation, the court is bound to take note thereof and grant appropriate relief and has to dismiss the suit, if it is barred by limitation. In this case, the relief in the plaint, as stated earlier, is one of declaration. The declaration is clearly governed by Article 58 of the Schedule of the Act which envisages that to obtain ''any other'' declaration the limitation of three years begins to run from the period when the right to sue ''.rst accrues''. The right to sue had .rst accrued to the respondent in September 10, 1957 when the respondent's services came to be terminated.
Once limitation starts running, until its running of limitation has been stopped by an order of the competent authority, it cannot stop. On expiry of three years from the date of dismissal of the respondent from service, the respondent had lost his right to sue for the above declaration."
< ,
!
,,-
, (!
" #$ %#%$
)(
*
!& -
)+
& 0 1
Saahil/Ayub Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No