LexHARNAMA SINGH (DEAD) LRS. ON RECORD & OTHERS versus SHRI HARBHAJAN SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'· .,;--·· HARNAMA SINGH (DEAD) LRS. ON RECORD & OTHERS v. SHRI HARBHAJAN SINGH AUGUST 22, 1991 [MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 148 read with Section I5( I), the Punjab Pre-emption Act and Article 136, Constitution of India, I950-Suits for pre-emption-Dismissed under Order 20, Rule I4-Deposit of pre-emption amount-Extention of time-Whether to be raised in appeal before the Supreme Court. A B c i Constitution of India, /050-Article 136--Appeal-Deposit of pre-emption amount-Whether to be raised before the Supreme Court. Three brothers executed four sale deeds on June 25, 1968, to respondent. The 4th brother, whose legal representatives are the appel- D lants, filed four suits of pre-emption against the vendee-respondent and those were decreed on terms of payment of pre-emption money on or before August 30, 1970. The plaintiff-pre-emptors-appellants filed four appeals before the District Judge for the reduction of the pre-emption money. On an E application moved by the pre-emptors the time for deposit of the amount fixed under the decree by the Trial Court was extended till further orders. The appeals were rejected under Order 41 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure as being insufficiently stamped and not properly F presented. Before hand, however on 26.10.1970, the plaintiff-pre-emptors, deposited the pre-emption amount in the Trial Court. The pre-emptors sought execution of the pre-emption decrees: G The vendee-judgment debtor raised objections stating that the suits stood automatically dismissed for non-deposit of the pre-emption money within the time identically stipulated under the decrees. The objection was sustained by the Trial/Executing Court. H 703 704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] 3 S.C.R. A The appeal to tile Appellate Court at the instance of the pre- emptors, was allowed, permitting the execution to proceed. A Single Judge of the High Court in further appeal upheld the view of the District Judge, but the Division Bench of the High Court B allowed the Letters Patent Appeals, upholding the objection made by tlie vendee-respondent, that there were no decrees which could be executed, against which these appeals by special leave to this Court were tiled·. The appellants contended that the controversy could be deter- mined Qn the anvil of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure by C extending time by the Court, as it was extendable when any period was fixed or granted by th" Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by the Court, even though the period originally rixed or granted had already expired; that this Court should exercise its plenary power in the interests of justice to extend the time. D Dismissing the appeals, this Court, HELD: 1.. There is no law of pre-emption permitting a decree to be drawn in terms of Section 15(1) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. Were · the Court to exercise al all the discretions on the subject, the Court E would in any event he completing the process of decreeing the suits; the suits which have been h"ld to fall down uµder Order 20 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure., tantamounting to.their dismissal, and that too on present day when such decrees cannot be passed. [707C-D] 2. The objections of the vendee must remain sustained and the F pre-emptor-appellants must fail in the event, not getting their suits for )'re-emption decreed. ·Decretal money deposited by .the appellants may be permitted to be withdrawn by them, if not already withdrawn. [707F-G] G 1Atam Parkash v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1986] l SCR 399, followed. Jogdhayan v. Babu Ram & Ors., [1983] l SCR 844 and !agar Dhish Bhlrgava v. Jawahar Lal Bhargava and Others, [1961] 2 SCR 918, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. H 2266-69 of 1979. J HARNAMA SINGH v. HARBHAJAN SINGH 705 From the Judgment dated 9.8.1978 of the Punjab and Haryana A High Court in L.P .A. Nos. 576 to 579 of 1975. ,.,,.. Harbans Lal and M.V. Goswami for the Appellants. Iqbal Singh for the Respo~dent. B The following Order of the Court was delivered: These appeals by special Leave are directed against the common judgment and decree of the Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in ,.., L.P.A. Nos. 576-79of 1975. 'i c Three brothers, by means of four sale deeds executed on June 25, 1968, sold some parcels of land to Harbhajan Singh-respondent herein. The 4th brother
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.