STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. UJAGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition arises from an order dated 1.8.2003 of Addl. District Judge, Bathinda vide which the application moved under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff respondent had filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction on 30.11.1999 claiming therein that he was appointed as Sub Inspector Consolidation (Patwari) on 16.7.1954 in the erstwhile State of Pepsu and retired from service on 31.1.1987 at the age of 58 years. The claim of the petitioner was that in the State of Pepsu retirement age was 60 years of Class IV employee. The suit was contested on the ground that the same was time barred. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit and rejected the plea of the petitioner herein regarding the suit being time barred by holding that he would be entitled to arrears for the period of 38 months prior to the date of filing of the suit along with interest @ 18% per annum from 30.9.1996. The learned Trial Court held that as claim to pension was a continuous cause of action and, therefore, the ground of limitation was not available to (he petitioner.

(3.) The suit was decreed on 27.7.2001. According to the petitioner it had applied for the certified copy on 28.7.2001 and same was supplied on 6.8.2001 to the District Attorney and was sent to the Director Prosecution and Litigation on 30.8.2001 and thereafter after complying with the formalities filed the appeal along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act on 2.3.2002. The said application was contested by the respondent-plaintiff and the learned lower Appellate Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1997(4) RCR (Civil) 242=AIR 1998 SC 2276, to hold that the limitation has to be applied with all its rigour prescribed by statute and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The reference was also placed on the judgment of this Court reported in 1996(2) RRR 485 (P&H)= 1995(3) PLR 156, to hold that no details were given as to in what manner the delay had occurred and whether these bottlenecks were reasonable or not. In absence of that the delay could not be condoned.