Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwant Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 25 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056462
RSA-554-2017 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:056462
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
211 RSA-554-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision :25.04.2024
Balwant Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present appeal, challenge is to judgment and decree dated
30.08.2014 passed by the trial Court, by which suit filed by the appellant-
plaintiff challenging the order dated 21.05.2004 was dismissed on the
ground that the same was time barred as well as judgment and decree dated
16.02.2016 passed by the lower Appellate Court by which, judgment and
decree of the trial Court has been upheld.
2. On being asked to point out as to how the judgment and decree
of the Courts below are perverse qua limitation, learned counsel for the
appellant argues that as the impugned order was a non-speaking order, the
said order has to be treated as void order and there is no limitation to
challenge the void order and hence, judgment and decree of the Courts
below are perverse.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056462
RSA-554-2017 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:056462
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1852-
1989 with Civil Appeal No.4772-1989, titled as, State of Punjab and
others vs. Gurdev Singh and Ashok Kumar, decided on 21.08.1991 even
void orders are to be challenged within a period of 03 years and as the order
impugned in the civil suit was of dated 21.05.2004 and the civil suit was
filed on 16.10.2009, the said suit was clearly beyond the period of limitation
provided and hence, judgment and decree of the Courts below are perfectly
valid and legal.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
5. The question which arises for determination in the present
appeal is, as to whether, there is any period of limitation provided to
challenge the void orders or not, even if, it is assumed that order impugned
in the civil suit is void.
6. The said issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India while passing order in Gurdev Singh and Ashok Kumar
(supra). Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:-
"4. First of all, to say that the suit is not governed
by the law of limitation runs afoul of our Limitation Act.
The statute of limitation was intended to provide a time
limit for all suits conceivable. Section 3 of the Limitation
Act provides that a suit, appeal or application instituted
after prescribed "period of limitation" must subject to the
provisions of Sections 4 to 24 be dismissed although
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056462
RSA-554-2017 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:056462
limitation has not been set up as a defence. Section
2(J) defines the expression "period of limitation" to mean
the period of limitation prescribed in the Schedule for suit,
appeal or application. Section 2 (J) also defines,
"prescribed period" to mean the period of limitation
computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act The
Court's function on the presentation of plaint is simply to
examine whether on the assumed facts, the plaintiff is
within time. The Court has to find out when the "fight to
sue" accrued to the plaintiff. If a suit is not covered by any
of the specific articles prescribing a period of limitation, it
must fall within the residuary article. The purpose of the
residuary article is to provide for cases which could not be
covered by any other provision in the Limitation Act. The
residuary article is applicable to every variety of suits not
otherwise provided for. Article 113 (corresponding
to Article 120 of the Act 1908 ) is a residuary article for
cases not covered by any other provisions in the Act. It
prescribes a period of three years when the right to sue
accrues. Under Art. 120 it was six years which his been
reduced to three years under Article 113. According to the
third column in Article 113, time commences to run when
the right to sue accrues. The words "right to sue" ordinarily
mean the right to seek relief by means of legal
proceedings. Generally, the right to sue accrues only when
then the cause of action arises, that is, the right to
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056462
RSA-554-2017 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:056462
prosecute to obtain relief by legal means. The suit must be
instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed or
when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that
right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted
[See (i) Mt. Bole v. Mt. Koklam and Ors., (AIR 1930 PC
270 and (ii) Gannon Dunkerley and Co. v. The Union of
India (AIR 1970 SC 1433).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
8. It will be clear from these principles, the party
aggrieved by the invalidity of the order has to approach
the Court for relief of declaration that the order against
him is inoperative and not binding upon him. He must
approach the Court within the prescribed period of
limitation. If the statutory time limit expires the Court
cannot give the declaration sought for.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx
11. The Allahabad High Court in Jagdish Prasad Mathur
and ors. v. United Provinces Government (AIR 1956 All.
114) has taken the view that a suit for declaration by a
dismissed employee on the ground that his dismissal is
void, is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act. A
similar view has been taken by Oudh Chief Court in
Abdul Vakil v. Secretary of State and Anr., (AIR 1943
Oudh 368). That in our opinion is the correct view to be
taken. A suit for declaration that an order of dismissal or
termination from service passed against the plaintiff is
wrongful, illegal or ultra vires is governed by Article
113 of the Limitation Act. The decision to the contrary
taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in these and
other cases (State of Punjab v. Ajit Singh (1988 (1) SLR
96) and(ii) State of Punjab v. Ram Singh (1986) (3)SLR
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056462
RSA-554-2017 (O&M) -5- 2024:PHHC:056462
379) is not correct and stands over- ruled."
7. Bare perusal of the above would show that even void orders are
to be challenged within the period of limitation and once, it is conceded fact
that suit was filed by the appellant-plaintiff beyond the period of three years
from the date of cause of action, the same was clearly time barred and was
rightly dismissed by the trial Court on the ground of limitation.
8. Keeping in view the above, as learned counsel for the appellant
has not been able to point out any perversity in the judgment and decree of
the Courts below, present regular second appeal is dismissed.
April 25, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
