High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Rajinder Parshad v. State of Punjab & Ors - RSA-2715-2002  RD-P&H 836 (16 February 2006)
R.S.A. No. 2715 of 2002
Date of Decision: January 31, 2006
State of Punjab and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Sushant Maini, DAG, Punjab,
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
The plaintiff having concurrently lost before both the Courts below has approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal. He challenged the order dated July 11, 1989 vide which he was ordered to be transferred and which order was communicated to him on September 18, 1989 by filing the present suit on August 4, 1994. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial Court by holding that the same was barred by limitation. His appeal before the learned first Appellate Court was also dismissed affirming the findings of the learned trial Court.
R.S.A. No. 2715 of 2002 
Sh. R.K. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has argued that prior to the suit, the plaintiff had filed an earlier suit in the year 1989 itself whereby he had challenged the order of transfer. However, the aforesaid suit was got dismissed as withdrawn by the plaintiff on an assurance given by the counsel for the defendants that the plaintiff would be reinstated as Daroga Inspector at his place of posting. A liberty was also reserved by the plaintiff to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Consequently, it has been argued that the plaintiff has filed the present suit after the assurance given by the defendants was not honoured and adhered to. The learned counsel states that the suit filed by the plaintiff could not be dismissed as barred by limitation. I am afraid the argument of the learned counsel could not be accepted. Once the limitation starts running, then it could not be stopped by any act of the parties. The fact of the matter is that the order dated July 11, 1989 is sought to be challenged by the plaintiff by filing the present suit on August 4, 1994. If some wrong assurance was given by the learned counsel for the defendant in the earlier suit, then the remedy for the plaintiff was to get his earlier suit revived.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
January 31, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.