Page Text
________________
the Halsbury's Laws of England Vol. 24 p. 181 (Para 330), in para No. 17 of the judgment which is very relevant and hence quoted here:- -
"330. Policy of Limitation Acts. The Courts have expressed at least three differing reasons supporting the existence of statutes ot 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 causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence." Then Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:"The objcet of the law of limitation is to prevent disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or laches."
11. Therefore, the petition of the petitioner cannot be entertained by treating bar of limitation to be an objection of technical nature.
12. Some times, question of bar of limitation and court's power to condone the delay are so mixed up that inference is drawn that plea (objection) of bar of limitation is in the nature of a technical objection. In fact, order of condoning of delay even by taking liberal view also recognizes the proposition of law that the court cannot ignore the period of limitation for an action and Court in appropriate case condones the delay so as to extend the period of limitation and will not ignore the law of limitation. No law provides nor there can be any justification for any court of law to reach to the conclusion that petition, suit or appeal has been presented beyond the period of limitation yet it can be entertained without condonation of delay. Prescribing of period of limitation for seeking relief from courts, is a policy in the interest of public so that the public at large may presume with certainty that there is no more any dispute in relation to the subject matter. Ifbar of limitation is treated as mere technical objection then the consequence will be grave, as there will be no certainty. As observed in Halsbury's Laws of Englad, that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the judgment of Rajendra Singh's case (supra) clearly held that the object of the law of limitation is to prevent disturbance or deprivation of what may have been aquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or laches.
13. As stated above, condonation of delay in appropriate cases is also a well recongnised policy in the interest of public. There may be persons who are not negligent and who may have been for valid reason, prevented by sufficient cause fo not taking action in time, then those bona fide persons may not suffer therefore, the Limitation Act provided reliefs to those bona fide perons governing almost all possible situation by enacting Section 4 to 24 of the Indian Limitation Act. It is true while interpreting issue of condonation of delay, it has been observed in number of cases that technicalities of law if are pitted against
59
| SR No. | 006170 |
| Book Title | Anup Mandal Ki Apradhik Karyavahi Ke Viruddh Rajy Sarkar Dwara Jari Adhisuchnaye |
| Original Sutra Author | N/A |
| Author | Bharatiya Sanskruti Samanvay Samsthan Jodhpur |
| Publisher | Bharatiya Sanskruti Samanvay Samsthan Jodhpur |
| Publication Year | 2015 |
| Total Pages | 122 |
| Language | Hindi |
| Classification | Book_Devnagari |
| File Size | 14 MB |