Even void orders must be challenged within the prescribed limitation period; failure to do so results in the suit being barred.

JUDGMENT

Namit Kumar, J.

By way of present Regular Second Appeal appellants-defendants have assailed the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2000 of the lower appellate Court, Hisar, whereby judgment and decree dated 17.12.1999 passed by the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar, has been reversed and suit of the respondent-plaintiff for declaration has been decreed.

2. Parties to the lis are being referred as per their status before the trial Court. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration pleading therein that he is serving as Sub Inspector in the Haryana Roadways, Hisar, on regular basis against the permanent post. It was pleaded that without conducting regular enquiry as per Rules, plaintiff was awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide orders dated 16.10.1969 and 30.10.1970, by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways Hisar, and the same are illegal, null and void having been passed in contravention of the mandatory provisions of law, rules, principles of natural justice and without hearing the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.1999. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, plaintiff preferred an appeal, which was accepted by the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2000. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal by the defendants.

3. Learned State counsel contended that lower appellate Court erred in law in decreeing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff as the same was hopelessly time barred. He further submitted that impugned orders were passed in the years 1969 and 1970 and suit was instituted in the year 1998 and as per settled principles of law, the suit should have been filed within the period of three years from the date of passing of impugned orders. Therefore, he has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court by allowing the present appeal.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court. He contended that the orders of stoppage of two increments of the respondent were void and against the principles of natural justice as the same were passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to him and without holding any enquiry. He further contended that there is no limitation to challenge the void orders. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in The State of Punjab v. Parkash Singh, 1993(3) S.C.T. 394; Malkial Singh v. State of Haryana, 2007(4) S.C.T. 801; Makhan Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, 2009(3) S.C.T. 123 and State of Punjab v. Niranjan Singh, 2014(4) S.C.T. 437.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The operation of the judgment and decree rendered by the lower appellate Court was stayed on 11.01.2001. Thereafter, the matter was admitted on 25.07.2003 and stay was ordered to continue.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Gurdev Singh (1991)4 SCC 1 has held that even a void order is required to be challenged within a period of limitation. The relevant discussion is in para 4 which is extracted as under: -

"4. First of all, to say that the suit is not governed by the law of Limitation runs afoul of our Limitation Act. The statute of limitation was intended to provide a time limit for all suits conceivable. Section 3 of the Limitation Act provides that a suit, appeal or application instituted after the prescribed "period of limitation" must subject to the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence, Section-2(J) defines the expression "period of limitation" to mean the period of limitation prescribed in the Schedule for suit, appeal or ap