Kapur, J. - (1.) This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India which in the heading: of the application filed by the Advocate-General is wrongly described as an application under Article 134 (c) of the Constitution.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent that no leave should be given in this case because of the long delay after which the present petition has been filed. The order against which this appeal is sought to be taken was made by this Court on 12-11-1962. The application which has been filed in this Court is dated 28-5-1953, i.e., 197 days after the judgment was delivered, in the Limitation Act no period pf limitation is prescribed for such applications made in criminal cases nor have any rules been made by this Court prescribing any period for the filing of such applications. But in the Supreme Court Rules of 1950 in Order 21, Rule 1, at page 20 a period of 60 days is prescribed for applications under Article 134(1) (a) & (b) and 30 days under Articles 132(1) and 134(1)(c). These rules have since been modified and the period has been curtailed to 30 days in both the cases. This rule was amended on 25-4-1950. Thus there is no provision in any of the statutes or the rules prescribing a period for an application for the grant of leave to appeal.
(3.) But Mr. Sarin submits that stale claims should not be allowed to be brought even in criminal cases. He relies on a passage in -- 'Mohammad Yunis v. Tilog Chand', AIR 1935 All 323 at p. 326 (A) where it is stated: "It is to be remembered that public policy re-quires that there should be speedy decisions of disputes and adjustments of conflicting claims and that stale claims should, as far as possible, be discouraged. It is also of cardinal importance for the progress of a civilized society on healthy lines that title should not be left in doubt and the unsettling of apparently settled facts should not be the order of the day." Reference may also be made to the statement of the law as given in Rustomji's Law of Limitation, 1938 edition, page 9, where it is stated: "The law is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure the quiet of the community, to suppress fraud and prejury, to quicken diligence, and to prevent oppression..... The statute is founded on the most salutary principle of general and public policy and incorporates a principle of great benefit to the community. It has, with great propriety, been termed a statute of repose, peace and justice. These statutes are among the most beneficial to be found in our books. They rest upon sound policy and tend to the peace and welfare of society and are essential to the security of all men. The statute discourages litigation by burying in one common receptacle all the accumulations of past times which are unexplained and have now from lapse of time become inexplicable. It has been said by Join Voet, with singular felicity that controversies are limited to a fixed period of time, lest they should be immortal while men are mortal." Reference may also be made to the observations of Mahmood J. in -- 'Mangu Lal v. Kandhai Lal', 8 All 475 at page 483 (B) and to -- 'Amme Raham v. Zia Ahmad' 13 All 282 at p. 287 (FB) (C). Thus the object of refusing to allow stale claims to be brought into Court is that by this means we "take away all solid grounds of complaint.";