TMI Blog1976 (4) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dn., at Nasik. By the said judgment and decree, the claim of the plaintiff was partially allowed against the defendant. 2. The plaintiff was an employee of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as the said corporation ), and was working as a cashier-cum-reservation clerk. The date of birth of the plaintiff being 24th October 1905, under the rules of the corporation, the plaintiff was liable to retire on 24th October 1963. The plaintiff, however, was dismissed by the Corporation on 15th July 1953. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the plaintiff filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 257 of 1957 on 14th March 1957, inter alia claiming a declaration that the order of dismissal was wrong and for consequential reliefs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice all the issues or the findings relating thereto. Suffice it to observe, that the learned Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of ₹ 5,963-13 ps. being the emoluments for the period of 3 years prior to the date of the suit. The learned Judge did not grant to the plaintiff arrears prior to the three years from the date of the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the Corporation filed the above mentioned First Appeal No. 381 of 1967. The plaintiff also preferred an appeal being the abovementioned First Appeal No. 617 of 1969, challenging the refusal of the learned Judge to grant him his claim over and above the one which was decreed in his favour. 4. Shri C. J. Sawant, the learned counsel for the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Section 13 or 15 of the Limitation Act. However, the learned counsel urges that the plaintiff, in the facts and circumstances of the case is entitled to general principles of suspension of limitation or right of action. The learned counsel emphasises that in view of the second appeal preferred by the Corporation, the plaintiff should not be denied his claims if he awaited the decision of this Court in the said second appeal He asserts that the period which was taken for the disposal of the said Second appeal must be excluded from consideration and arrears of salary should be decreed upon the said footing. It is the submission of the learned counsel that in cases where a party is prevented by reason of certain valid circumstances from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. The Limitation Act is founded on public policy. The Limitation Act of 1963 is not only a codifying Act but also an amending Act. The provisions of the Limitation Act are a Code complete in themselves. Section 3 of the Limitation Act enjoins a Court to dismiss every suit, appeal or application which is not within the prescribed period. Gateways from the peremptory provisions of Section 3 are provided by Sections 4 to 24. It follows from the provisions of the Limitation Act and the principles enshrined therein that no Court is entitled to invoke any principle for holding a claim as not barred by Law of Limitation if such a principle is not to be found expressly or by necessary implication in the provisions of the Limitation Act. No separa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... James Mantosh reported in [1971]2SCR397 . The Supreme Court at page 2317 observed: x x x all questions of limitation must be decided by the provisions of the Act and the Courts cannot travel beyond them . 11. It is not disputed before us that the article which is applicable to the plaintiff's claim in suit is Article 7 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The said Article corresponds to Articles 7 and 102 of the Act of 1908. A claim for recovery of salary under Article 102 came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Sakal Deep Sahai Srivastava v. Union of India reported in (1974)ILLJ270SC . In that case the question that was posed before the Court was whether Article 102 or 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applied to a claim fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dissent from the view taken by the Allahabad High Court. We have no hesitation in rejecting the contention that the plaintiff is entitled to relaxation of the rule of limitation by reason of any hardship or special circumstances of the case. In our opinion, there can be no obviation of the bar of limitation on the ground of general suspension of limitation or right of action. 14. In the result, both the First Appeals are dismissed. The Judgment and decree of the trial Court are confirmed. There will be no order as to costs in both the appeals. 15. As the plaintiff is unsuccessful on a technical plea of limitation, we think, that the proper order to be made is that the court fees payable on the appeal should be borne by the Corporation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
