Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANGREJ & ANR. versus ABHAY RAM

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Angrej & Anr. v. Abhay Ram - CR-1588-1993 [2006] RD-P&H 2140 (30 March 2006)

C.R. No. 1588 of 1993. (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.R. No. 1588 of 1993.

Date of Decision: 5.4.2006.

Angrej and another. ...Petitioners.

Versus

Abhay Ram ...Respondent.

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

Present: Shri R.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Shri R.N. Lohan, Advocate, for the respondent.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff/pre-emptors are in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 3.4.1993, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for extending the period to deposit the amount in terms of the order dated 29.11.1991, was dismissed.

The petitioners had filed a suit for pre-emption in respect of sale of the agricultural land. The learned trial Court passed an exparte decree for possession in favour of the petitioners on 8.4.1989. The respondent moved an application for setting aside of the said exparte judgment and decree. The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 20.8.1991. However, in appeal, the parties entered into settlement. As per the settlement, the plaintiff was to deposit a sum of Rs.6440/- on or before 7.1.1992. It was stipulated that in case the amount is not paid or deposited then the appeal shall be deemed to have been accepted and if the amount is deposited, the appeal was to be dismissed.

C.R. No. 1588 of 1993. (2)

The operative part of the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 29.11.1991 reads as under:-

"Statements of the appellant and his counsel as also of the respondent and his counsel have been recorded.

Abhey Ram appellant and his counsel have stated that in case Rs.6440/- are paid by the respondent-decree holder on 7.1.1992 then his appeal be dismissed.

Respondent and his counsel have made statement that they will pay or deposit the amount of Rs.6440/- on 7.1.1992 and in case the amount is not paid or deposited then the appeal be deemed to have been accepted.

In view of the statements of the parties and their counsel, the appeal is disposed of with the observations that in case Rs.6440/- are paid or deposited by the respondent upto 7.1.92, then the appeal shall stand dismissed otherwise it be deemed to have been accepted. No order as to costs. File be consigned to the record room."

Admittedly, the amount of Rs.6440/- has not been deposited on or before 7.1.1992. The said amount has been deposited on 14.1.1992.

Since the amount was not deposited before 7.1.1992, the petitioner has sought extension in time to deposit the amount, which has been declined vide the order impugned in the present revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the said amount could not be deposited on account of injuries received by the plaintiff-Angrej and his family members in respect of which an FIR was lodged on 24.12.1991. Thus, there is sufficient cause for extension to deposit the amount in terms of the order passed by the Court. Reference is made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Periyakkal and others Vs. Smt. Dakshyani AIR 1983 Supreme Court 428, to C.R. No. 1588 of 1993. (3)

contend that even if the matter is settled by way of the compromise, the Court has the jurisdiction to extend the time in appropriate cases.

However, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I do not find it to be a fit case where the time should be extended. It is well settled that the right of pre-emption is a piratical right. To claim any such right, the provisions of law have to be meticulously complied with. The petitioner has got an exparte judgment and decree. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the decretal amount was deposited in pursuance of the exparte decree passed but the amount required to be deposited by an order passed before the Appellate Court, has not been deposited. The consequences of deposit or non deposit of the amount by 7.1.1992 are clearly stipulated in the said settlement. Since the said stipulations have been agreed between the parties, it is not open to the petitioners now to come forward for extension of time.

The argument that plaintiff No.1's daughter was seriously injured in the incident and had remained in hospital till 14.1.1992 is not sufficient for giving extension in time. Statement of PW1 Dr. Dhan Kumar shows that Angrej- petitioner No.1 herein, was discharged on the same day after being given first aid. From 24.12.1991 till 7.1.1992, the petitioners had two weeks with him to deposit the balance amount. The parties having entered into settlement, are bound to honour the same. The compromise was arrived at on 29.11.1991. There was sufficient time available with the petitioners to deposit the amount even prior to the incident and thereafter.

Injury to the daughter would not provide a sufficient excuse to the petitioners to seek extension of time in a suit for pre-emption. Therefore, the reason on the basis of which extension of time is sought, is not the one C.R. No. 1588 of 1993. (4)

which is sufficient for extension of time in a suit for pre-emption in which an order has been passed on the basis of the consent of the parties. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that the time would not be extended ordinarily nor for mere asking. It would be extended in rare cases to prevent manifest injustice. Since the right of pre-emption is a piratical right, there is no manifest injustice to the petitioners, if the time is not extended. Such application has been rightly declined by the learned Additional District Judge.

Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.

5.4.2006 (Hemant Gupta)

ds Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.