HARNAMA SINGH (DEAD) LRS. ON RECORD & OTHERS v. SHRI HARBHAJAN SINGH

Tools

Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided: 1991 (year only)
Bench: MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI and K. RAMASWAMY
Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 703

Source PDF (original scan)
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0

Judgment · Supreme Court of India · decided 1991 (year only) · Bench: MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI and K. RAMASWAMY

[1991] 3 S.C.R. 703

Machine-read from a scanned report. Check the printed page before citing. Report an error.

Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)

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 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]

Reporter's headnote (continued) and case details

AUGUST 22, 1991 '· .,;--·· B

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. 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 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 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

p. 704

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,

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] 1Atam Parkash v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1986] l SCR 399, followed. G 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.

p. 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

Judgment

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 Three brothers, by means of four sale deeds executed on June c 25, 1968, sold some parcels of land to Harbhajan Singh-respondent herein. The 4th brother by the name of Ujagar Singh, whose legal representatives are the appellants herein, filed four suits of pre- emption against the vendee and those were decreed on July 15, 1970, on terms of payment of pre-emption money on or before August 30, D

1970. Four appeals were filed by the plaintiff-pre-emptors before the District Judge for the reduction of the pre-emption money. On an application moved by the pre-emptors the tin1e for deposit of the ~ amount fixed under the decree by the Trial Court was extended till further orders. The appeals finally were rejected under Order 41 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure as being insufficiently stamped and hence not properly presented. Before hand, however, the plaintiff- pre-emptors, all the same, deposited the pre-emption amount in the Trial Court, on their 0wn, on October 26, 1970.

~. After the rejection of their appeals, the pre-emptors sought execution of the pre-emption decrees which attracted objections by the vendee-judgment debtor. The primary objection raised was that the suits stood automatically dismissed for non-deposit of the pre- emption money within the time identically stipulated under the questioned decrees. The plea of the vendee was based on the mandate

Footnotes

20 Rule 14, Civil Procedure Code whereunder the Court when decreeing the claim to pre-emption is required to specify in the G ...- . decree on or before which the pre-emption money shall be paid, if not already paid, and further if it is not so paid, the suit shall stand dismis- sed with costs. (Whatever is relevant in Order

21 Rule 14 alone has been taken note of). The date spec.ified by the Trial Court as said before was August 30, 1970 and under the interim orders of the Appel- late Court the time for depositing the S3id money was extended till H

p. 706

A further orders. Undeniably the Court never passed any further orders in that regard and thus the time for depositing the said money stood extended without any limit. The. objection was sustained by the Trial/ Executing Court. On appeal to the Appellate Court at the instance of the pre-emptors, the District Judge took a contrary view permitting the execution to proceed. A learned Single Judge of the High Court in B appeal upheld the view of the District Judge, hut a Division Bench of the High Court. In Letters Patent Appeals, reversed the District Judge as also the Single Judge upholding the objection by the vendee that there were no decrees which could be executed.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant for he alone was present. c There has been a sea change in the law of pre-emption in the States of Punjab and Haryana w!Jerefrom these appeals have arisen. Whereas in Punjab the Punjab Pre-emption Act itself has been repealed, in Haryana it has substantially been chopped down by justic- D ing. This Court in Atam Parkash v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1986] 1 SCR 399 declared ultra vires section 15(1) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, as applicable to Haryana, whereunder certain relatives of the vendor had been given the right to pre-empt • sale of immovable property. The view of this Court and the present state of law is not by ~ any means insignificant or irrelevant for judging the present matter E and for resolving the controversy in hand. Rather its pervasive thought permeats the mind.

Learned counsel for the appellants would have the controversy determined on the anvil of Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, .ii pleading for time to be extended by the Court, as it is extendable when _JI' F any period is fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by the Court, even though the period originally fixed or granted has already expired. He has brought to our notice that in the main matter when the appeal was rejected by the District Judge as being insufficiently stamped time· was asked from the District Judge to make good the.deficiency in the stamp duty but that was rejected and though he concedes that the matter was not taken up in revision before the High Court, it is still contended that this Court should ~ exercise its plenary power to extend the time in the interests of justice ....,.., and have the Court fee made good. He also concedes that when the District Judge was asked to extend and specify the time for deposit of the pre-emption money, he had declined to exercise his discretion, so as to regularise payment, when the appellants had by themselves

p. 707

Footnotes

1 SCR 844 and Jaga(Dhish Bhargava v. Jawahar Lal Bhargava and Others, [1961]

2 SCR 918. In any event he concedes that for the later wrongful non-exercise of discretion of the District Judge, the matter was not taken in Second Appeal or Revision, as the case may be, before the High Court. We have pondered over the matter. Our view may appear some- what slanting but we cannot disassociate ourselves from the canvass c now spread, showing 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 we to exercise at all the discretions on the subject afor·e-mentioned we would in any event be completing the process of decreeing the suits; the suits which have been held to fall down under D 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. The High Court however, took the controversy in a different light. It took the view that the insufficiently stamped appeals before the District Judge were no appeals in the eye of law, as was contended on behalf of the vendee, and the view of the District Judge in not extending time was right as it was rightly considered that the appeals had not been entertained at all. Support was also taken for its-_ ~w by the High Court from the circumstance of the order of the Court extending time ex-parte, which conferred no obligation on the vendee to treat the decree operativ.e against him as and when the pre-emptors chose to deposit the pre-emption money. The High Court on this reasoning restored the jurlgment of the Trial/Executing Court, upholding the objections of the vendee. Where the High Court arrived by following one way, we have been led to arrive by another. The end result, however, is the same that the objections of the vendee must remain sustained and the pre-emptor-appellants must fail in the event, not getting their suits for pre-emption decreed. The appeals must thus inevitably fail and are hereby dismissed. Decreetal money deposited by the appellants may be permitted to be withdrawn by them, if not already withdrawn. No costs for there is no opposition.

V.P.R. Appeals dismissed.

Report an error in this judgment →

Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0