Refund claim limitation runs from discovery of mistake, not automatic knowledge of a judgment on pronouncement or publication.

Refund claims for money paid under mistake are governed by limitation from the date the mistake is discovered with reasonable diligence. A prior judicial decision may be relevant to that discovery, but knowledge of the decision is not automatically imputed on the date of pronouncement or publication. On the facts, the petitioners' account that they learned of the decision only on 10 January 2000 was accepted, and the technical plea of limitation was rejected. The refund claim was therefore treated as within time for the purpose of the reference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claim for refund was barred by limitation, and whether the date on which the petitioners received knowledge of the prior decision through their advocate could be treated as the date of knowledge for computing limitation.

Analysis: The governing principle applied was that, in claims for refund of money paid under a mistake, limitation begins when the mistake is discovered with reasonable diligence. A judicial decision may be relevant as the point at which the mistake becomes discoverable, but knowledge of that decision is not automatically attributable to a party on the date of pronouncement or publication. On the facts, the petitioners' assertion that they learnt of the decision only on 10 January 2000 was accepted, and the authorities were not justified in rejecting the refund claim on a technical limitation plea. The claim was treated as bona fide and within time for the purpose of the reference.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held not to be barred by limitation, and the petitioners succeeded on the limitation issue.

Ratio Decidendi: In a refund claim based on money paid under mistake, limitation runs from the date when the mistake is discovered with reasonable diligence, and a party is not deemed to have knowledge of a judgment merely because it was pronounced or published.

---