Skip to content


Sadhu Singh and anr. Vs. Dharam Dev and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 2047 of 1973
Judge
Reported inAIR1980SC1654; (1981)1SCC510; 1980(12)LC802(SC)
ActsPunjab Pre-emption (Repeal) Act, 1973 - Sections 3
AppellantSadhu Singh and anr.
RespondentDharam Dev and ors.
Excerpt:
.....the company were being conducted. the appellant's petition was dismissed by the high court. in the appeal to this court it was contended on behalf of the appellants: (1) that the order was made made fide on account of the competing interests of a firm in which the minister in charge of the department was interested and also because of his personal hostility against the second petitioner who was the managing director of the company; that the high court had erred in deciding the petition on the footing that the first respondent board was an independent authority and that it was its chairman who on his own had formed the requisite opinion and passed the order and therefore the motive or the evil eye of the minister was irrelevant; the high court also erred in failing to appreciate that even..........view of section 3 of the punjab pre-emption (repeal) act. 1973 which reads thus:section 3 :bar to pass decree in suit for pre-emption on and from the date of commencement of the punjab pre-emption (repeal) act, 1973 no court shall pass in a decree in any suit for pre emption.2. the section is plain and its meaning unambiguous that there is a statutory mandate against passing a decree for enforcement of a fight of preemption in the state of punjab, the only point here is as to whether a decree already passed by the trial court, challenged in appeal after the act was passed and affirmed on appeal would fall within the mischief of section 3 while the case pends in the high court; we think that section 3 interdicts the passing of a decree even in appeal. for one thing a decree challenged in.....
Judgment:

V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.

1. The short and single point raised by Shri Harbans Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, in this appeal by special leave is that the decree for preemption passed against the appellant is on insatiable in view of Section 3 of the Punjab Pre-emption (Repeal) Act. 1973 which reads thus:

SECTION 3 :

Bar to pass decree in suit for pre-emption on and from the date of commencement of the Punjab Pre-emption (Repeal) Act, 1973 no Court shall pass in a decree in any suit for pre emption.

2. The section is plain and its meaning unambiguous that there is a statutory mandate against passing a decree for enforcement of a fight of preemption in the state of Punjab, The only point here is as to whether a decree already passed by the trial Court, challenged in appeal after the Act was passed and affirmed on appeal would fall within the mischief of Section 3 while the case pends in the High Court; We think that Section 3 interdicts the passing of a decree even in appeal. For one thing a decree challenged in appeal is re-opened and the appellate hearing is a re-hearing of the whole subject matter and when a decree is passed in appeal the first decree merges in the appellate decree and it comes within the scope of Section 3. The decision of this Court in 'Official liquid it or v. R. Desikachar' reported in : [1975]1SCR605 directly covers the situation.

3. Necessarily, we have to allow the appeal and dismiss the suit, but in the circumstances no costs.


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