Delhi HC: Meta Directed to Remove Obscene Photos of Minor Girl  ||  Cal. HC: To Convict Person u/s 304B of IPC, Conclusive Proof of Cruelty before Death Required  ||  Kerala HC: Can Admit Unregistered Sale Agreements as Evidence in Specific Performance Suits  ||  Cal. HC: Can’t Allow Rectification in DOB of Employee When Age Determined through Statutory Purpose  ||  Cal. HC: Can’t Generally Use Public Exchequer Funds with Official Liquidator for Welfare of Employee  ||  Delhi HC: Can’t Reject Plaint Due to Arbitration Clause Unless Application u/s 8 is Filed  ||  Telangana HC Strikes Down State Government’s Decision to Allot Land to Arbitration Centre  ||  Karnataka HC: Salvation of the Country Lies in Identifying Human Beings as a Human Being  ||  SC Allows Stone Crusher Operation Issue to be Raised in Kerala High Court  ||  SC Set to Hear Plea Challenging Policy of Uniform Pricing for Consular Passport and Visa Services    

Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of U.P. and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (28 Feb 2022)

Mere filing of representation before authorities does not extend limitation period

MANU/SC/0260/2022

Civil

The Petitioner filed Writ Petition by which the Petitioner prayed to allot 10% plot to him as provided under Clause 12 of the Sale Deed dated 19th September, 2001 and as per the Resolution passed in 102nd meeting of NOIDA Board on 7th January, 1998.

The High Court by the impugned judgment and order has dismissed the said writ petition holding firstly, that Writ Petition arising out of contract between parties is not maintainable and Petitioner should have filed a Suit for specific performance; secondly, Writ Petition has been filed after a delay of 16 years and delay is fatal for challenge to acquisition or for any claim arising out of it.

Mere representation does not extend the period of limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court expeditiously and within reasonable time. If it is found that the writ Petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ Petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation, once it is found that the original writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches. Such order shall not give an opportunity to the Petitioner to thereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently has given a fresh cause of action.

The High Court has rightly refused to grant any relief which was in the form of specific performance of the contract. No writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 shall be maintainable and/or entertainable for specific performance of the contract and that too after a period of 10 years by which time even the suit for specific performance would have been barred by limitation. There is no substance in the present special leave petition. Petition dismissed.

Tags : DELAY   TIME PERIOD   EXTENSION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved