LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

R C Nigam (xxxxxxxxx)     29 May 2011

Is it negation of natural justice?

The Limitation Act is an obstacle in the delivery of Justice. In India, where a large percentage of population, which is illiterate or semi, rather just literate, very often deprived of Justice, only because of this bogus Act. Not only the illiterate but others too suffer sometimes due to this Act.

 

No doubt, the delay is sometimes condoned by the Judges, but it gives room for grudge to the petitioner, when his application for condonation of delay is turned down.

 

In an interesting case, my request was referred back after deliberation for 7 yrs.,  to the DRM/NR/Lucknow for reconsideration, by the learned CAT. As my claim was again rejected, I approached the CAT with a fresh petition, which was declared time barred by the learned CAT. My common sense says that it was jurisdictional error of the CAT, who, instead of deciding the case themselves, referred it to the DRM and the CAT, therefore, should not have declared the petition as timebarred.

 

All said and done, it appears reasonable to either scrap the Act or streamline it and lay down a fixed time frame for all types of Appeals, Review etc, which should not be less than 5 years in any case.



Learning

 2 Replies

Suchitra. S (Advocate)     29 May 2011

The Limitation Act is based on the basic rule of jurisprudence that the person who sleeps over his rights cannot claim it later. And ignorance of law is no excuse. 

I understand that a common man doesnt know about Limitaion Act. But doesnt he know to appraoch an advocate if his rights are infringed? 

R C Nigam (xxxxxxxxx)     29 May 2011

The basic point is, that the very concept of an intermediary between the aggrieved and the Judge, is unwanted.

 

Why not the Judge be made responsible to hear the petitioner and give Judgment? Why the Laws are so complicated that the aid of an advocate is necessary? Why even advocates fail to draft a petition properly? This is reflected from the fact that quite often, on change of the advocate, or otherwise also, amendment to the petition is introduced. In the light of all these facts, it is a travesty of process of administration of justice to say that it is the basic rule of jurisprudence that if one sleeps over his rights, he can't claim it at a later date or ignorance of law is no excuse.

 

People should not b deprived of their right to get justice. More so, when the substantive justice is in his favour, the Limitation should not prove an obstacle.
 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register