Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved an employee of the Municipal Corporation who was dismissed from service. The employee filed a suit seeking a declaration that his dismissal was illegal because the order was not passed by the Municipal Commissioner as required by Section 13 of the Indore Municipal Act, 1909, but by one G who was acting in place of the Commissioner without proper authorization. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the employee, accepting his plea that the dismissal was void. On appeal, the District Judge reversed the decree, holding that the suit was barred by limitation under Section 135(2) of the Act, which prescribed a six-month limitation period for suits in respect of any act done under the Act by an officer of the Municipality. Notably, the specific plea of limitation under Section 135(2) had not been raised in the trial court, though a general plea of limitation was mentioned. The High Court, on further appeal, set aside the District Judge's judgment and restored the trial court's decree. The High Court found that no government order was produced to show that G had been appointed to act as Municipal Commissioner, and therefore the dismissal order was passed without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the Municipal Corporation's appeal, holding that since the dismissal order was passed without jurisdiction, it was not an "act done under the Act" and thus the special limitation period under Section 135 did not apply. The Court further held that a special plea of limitation is a legal defence that must be specifically pleaded; as the Corporation had not raised this plea in the trial court, the District Judge erred in entertaining it. The decision of the High Court was affirmed.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Special Plea of Limitation - Section 135, Indore Municipal Act, 1909 - A special plea of limitation is a defence that must be specifically pleaded. The Municipal Corporation did not plead Section 135 in the trial court, and the District Judge should not have entertained such a plea. Held that the special plea of limitation not having been pleaded cannot be raised in appeal. B) Municipal Law - Jurisdiction - Section 135, Indore Municipal Act, 1909 - An order passed without jurisdiction is not an "act done under the Act" within the meaning of Section 135. The dismissal order was passed by G, who was not shown to be authorized to act as Municipal Commissioner; thus, it was beyond jurisdiction and the limitation provision for suits against acts done under the Act did not apply. Held that the suit was not barred by limitation.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit was barred by limitation under Section 135(2) of the Indore Municipal Act, 1909, and whether the dismissal order passed by an officer not authorized under the Act was an act done under the Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the dismissal order passed by G was beyond his jurisdiction and therefore not an act done under the Act, so the limitation under Section 135 did not apply. Additionally, the special plea of limitation under Section 135 was not pleaded in the trial court and could not be raised in appeal. The decree of the High Court restoring the trial court's decree was affirmed.
Law Points
- If a special plea of limitation is a defence
- it must be pleaded
- An order passed without jurisdiction is not an act done under the Act
- Limitation provision under Section 135 of the Indore Municipal Act
- 1909 does not apply to acts without jurisdiction
