PUNJAB STATE Vs. MANGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal has been directed against judgment and decree dated 31.3.2000 whereby appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.8.1997 passed by the trial court dismissing suit of the respondent-plaintiff was accepted, impugned judgment and decree was set aside and suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed to the following effect:-

(2.) Counsel for the appellants would argue that order of dismissal dated 12.11.1992 was challenged by filing suit on 10.1.1996. The trial court framed issues, reproduced in para 5 of the judgment of First Appellate Court. It is further submitted that the trial court took up issues No. 2 and 5 jointly for the purpose of discussion and decision and the same were answered against the respondent-plaintiff with the finding that period of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "the Code") is not liable to be excluded for the reasons recorded in para 13 of the judgment of said court, therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and further held the suit to be bad for want of legal and valid notice. It is further argued that the Appellate court without adverting to observations of the trial court in para 13 of the judgment of said court and by assigning reasons contrary to the facts on record, reversed findings of the trial court on the question of limitation but without reversing finding with regard to notice being not legal and valid, decreed the suit. It is further argued that since the respondent filed suit impugning order dated 12.11.1992 well before expiry of period of two months from the date of notice in compliance with the provisions of Section 80 of the Code, the period of notice cannot be excluded for computing limitation as has been so held by the trial court by relying upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court Bihari Chowdhary vs. State of Bihar AIR 1984 SC 1043.

(3.) Counsel would further argue that even findings of the trial court with regard to validity or otherwise of order of dismissal are not based upon correct appreciation of materials on record, thus, cannot be allowed to sustain.