RAMA K KUNDER Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS CIVIL PETITION HAS BEEN FILED AFTER A LAPSE OF 4,988 DAYS FOR review AND RECALLING OF THE ORDER DATED 21-9-1982 PASSED IN WRIT petition NO. 31507 OF 1981.

(2.) THE PLEA TAKEN IS THAT THOUGH THE PETITIONER HEREIN WAS THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN THE SAID WRIT PETITION BUT THE WAS NOT HEARD. THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT REVEALS THAT ONE M. R. MANJAPPA, advocate, HAD APPEARED ON HIS BEHALF. THE PLEA TAKEN IS THAT THE petitioners HAD NOT INSTRUCTED THE SAID LAWYER TO APPEAR ON HIS behalf.

(3.) IN MY OPINION AFTER A LAPSE OF MORE THAN SIXTEEN YEARS NOW IT IS DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE SAID ALLEGATION the SUPREME COURT IN M/s. TILOKCHAND MOTICHAND AND OTHERS V h. B. MUNSHI, COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, BOMBAY AND ANOTHER, has QUOTED WITH APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING PASSAGE FROM HALSBURY's laws OF ENGLAND (THIRD EDITION, VOL. 24, ARTICLE 330) SUPPORTING the PUBLIC POLICY BEHIND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. "the COURTS HAVE EXPRESSED AT LEAST THREE DIFFERENT reasons SUPPORTING THE EXISTENCE OF STATUTES OF LIMITATION, namely, (1) THAT LONG DORMANT CLAIMS HAVE MORE OF CRUELTY than JUSTICE IN THEM, (2) THAT A DEFENDANT MIGHT HAVE LOST the EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE A STALE CLAIM AND (3) THAT PERSONS with GOOD CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD PURSUE THEM WITH reasonable DILIGENCE".