Skip to content


Jagat Ram and ors. Vs. Jagit Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Property
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 1830 of 1983
Judge
Reported inAIR1984P& H281
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 2, 47 and 212; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1976
AppellantJagat Ram and ors.
RespondentJagit Singh
Cases ReferredIn Ram Niwas v. Mithan Lal
Excerpt:
.....singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order..........who claims to have purchased the lands from the judgments debtors on july 10 and 19, 1979 filed an objection petition under order dated july 31, 1982. the petitioners filed an appeal against the order of the executing court which was dismissed by additional district judge, jullundur vide order dated july 1983, being not maintainable. it is against this order that the present revision is directed. 2. the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the objection petition of the petitioners led before the existing court hail been wrongly shown to have been filed under order 21, r. 58 and that in fact it was an objection petition filed under section 47 of the civil p. c. the argument proceeds that a order passed under section 47, civil p. c. is appealable and the learned.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Jagjit-Singh respondent secured a decree for possession through pre-emption of. land measuring. 65 Karnals 12 Marlas in Basti Baba Khel, Tahsil and District Julundur, against Pritam Kaur etc. on payment of Rs. 15,880/- (including one-fifth of the pre-emption amount already deposited): The amount was to be deposited on or before July 28, 1905. According to Jagjit Singh respondent he deposited the pre-emption amount within the stipulated period but he could not get the possession of the land on account of delaying tactics of the judgment-debtors. In the execution proceedings initiated on April 13, 1977, the petitioners who claims to have purchased the lands from the judgments debtors on July 10 and 19, 1979 filed an objection petition under order dated July 31, 1982. The petitioners filed an appeal against the order of the executing Court which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Jullundur vide order dated July 1983, being not maintainable. It is against this order that the present revision is directed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the objection petition of the petitioners led before the existing Court hail been wrongly shown to have been filed under Order 21, R. 58 and that in fact it was an objection petition filed under Section 47 of the Civil P. C. The argument proceeds that a order passed under Section 47, Civil P. C. is appealable and the learned Additional District Judge has wrongly held otherwise. Reliance has been placed on Parshava Properties Ltd. v. A. K. Bose, AIR 1971 Pat 308. The contention is v without merit

3. In Parshava Properties' case, (AIR 1979 Pat 308) (supra), it was held that the order of the executing Court under Section 47, Civil P. C., amounted to a decree within Section 2 l2) as amended by Act 104 of 1976 and being appealable at a decree no revision was maintainable. This case was taken notice of in Hansumatiben v. Ambalal' Krishnalal Parikh, AIR 1982 Gujarat 324, Mst. Sarabai Agarwalla v. Haradhan Mohapatra, AIR 1982 Orissa 9, Ramesh Kumar Swarupchand Sancheti v. Rameshwar Vallabhiam Bhatwal, AIR 1983 Bom 378, and the ratio thereof was not approved

4. In Ram Niwas v. Mithan Lal, AIR 1979 Punjab and Har 282, i: was held.that an appeal against an order dismissing an objection under Section 47, Civil P. C., filed after the Amending Act No. 104 of 1576 came into force is incompetent.

5. The execution application was filed by the respondent-decree-holder after Act, No. 104 of.1976 came into force. In that definition of 'decree' under S. 2(a), Civil. P. C. as amended in 1976, the wards 'the determination of any question within Section 47, Civil P. C., were excluded reform..

6. In other words, under the amended definition of 'decree' after the amendment' of 1976 an order passed under section 47 Civil P, C. is not to be trial as such with the result that it shall cease to be appealable. The learned Additional District Judge has correctly held that the order passed by the executing Court on July 31, 1982, dismissing the objection petition filed by the petitioners under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, is not appealable.

7. In the result, the revision fails and s dismissed with. no order as to costs.

8. Revision dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //