Partly allowed

Avtar Singh v. Sohan Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Oct 2009CR/4427/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies to applications under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC. The court allowed the condonation of delay, finding the petitioners acted in good faith on erroneous counsel advice, and remitted the matter for trial.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the application to set aside the decree was condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The matter was remitted to the lower court for trial.

Avtar Singh Vs Sohan Singh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

7 Z

44V
Civil Revision NoA427 of 1994 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
4
Civil Revision NoA427 of 1994 l
Dateof OrderSSOctober 2009
l
Avta Singh and others Petitioners
1
Versus
0 Sohan Singh and others espondents
C
I CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
C5
I Present Mr Arun Jain Senior Advocate with
Mr Amit Jain Advocate
Z for the petitioners
Mr Rahui Sharma Advocate
for respondentno
Q
RAJIVE BtLA J

¶5

The petitionerschallenge^an order dated 09 1994 passedby the Sub Judge Ist Class Kapurthala dismissingthe application for setting^aside the judgment^and decree^dated12 091⁹⁹⁰ passedagainst Darshan Singh the deceasededefendantrl as barred by time

¶6

Before prcceediIlgto decide the dispute^on ments It WOUId be appropriate^to narrate the facts Sohan Singh and Jagtat Singh respondentsnol and 2 filed Civil Suit No 43 of 31 1987 againsttheir brother Darshan Singh claimingequalrightsin the propertyieft behind iov their father Kabul Singh Darshan Singhcontested the suit byailegingthat Kabul Singhhad executed a will dated 23 J86 bequeathingthe entIre property^In his favour During^the pendency^ofthesuit Darshari Singh soid a part of the suit Iand to petitionersno to 3 vide sale deeds dated

¶7

21 . Rashmi2012.08.09 15: 040 1988 and 238 1988 and moi1gageda parf of the suit Iand vide JOYTI RANI2016.03.28 16:23 True ScannedCopy Of the I attest to the accuracy and rnortgageOriginalPHHC,Chandigarhdeeds dated 101J21 988 and 141 21 987 to peliiionersnc 8110 integrity of this document

0 C I C0 I Z

r I a5

A Civil Revision NoA427^of1994

¶14

1
1

¶15

5 Before the suit could be decided Darshan Singh passed away Respondents^no 1 and^2and Resham Kaur widow of Darshan Singh respondent^no8entered into^a compromisewherebytheyagreedthat respondentsno 1 and 2 would be^owners to the extent of 213dshare and Resham Kaur would be^owner to the extent of 113 share of the suit property^{Adecreedated12091990was} accordinglydrawn^upin terms of this compromise

¶16

In execution proceedingsinitiated by respondentsnol and 2 warrants for joint possession^wereissued The petitioners^filed obJectionsclaiming^thatas they^arebona6de purchasers^and mortgagees without knowledgeof the pendingsuit theyare not bound by the decree under execution The executingcourt^dismissed the objectionsas not maintainable but held that the remedyif any is to file^an applicationfor being impleaded^as Iegal of Darshan Singhin the original suit

¶17

The petitionersthereafter filed^an applicationunder Order 22 Rule 4^as amended by the Punjaband HaryanaHighCourt prayingthat^as they^are Iegal representatives^ofDarshan Singhdeceased the judgment and decree dated¹² 09 1990 should be set aside and the suit should be tried on merits The applicationwas accompaniedby^an applicationfor condonation of delayunder Sections 5 and 14 of the LimitationAc The petitionersasserted that^as they^are bonafide purchasersand inortgagees unaware of the pehdencyof the civil suit theyare not bound by the decree dated 12091990 which has been obtained byabandoningthe defence set up by Darshan Singh The respondentsopposed the applicationby asserting^thatthe application^IS barred by^Iimltation On merits the respondentspleaded^thatDarshan Singhand^his widow^were dulyserved

¶18

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 lor I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

. Rashmi and 2012.08.09 15: 04True Scannedhad filed their written statement It was the duty of ccunsel lor Copy Of the Original DarshanPHHC,Chandigarh Singhto inforrnthe Court about the death of Darsrjan Singh lhe

0 C I C5 I Z C

j Civil Revision NoA427 of 1994 3 petitionerswho^are vendees pendenteIitefrom Darshan Singhare bound 1by^the judgment^anddecree passedagainst^{their vendor}

¶26

The trial court dismissed the applicationby holdingthat though the petitionerscan be impleaded^as Iegal of Darshan Singh^deceased the application^IS barred by time The triai court therefore did not consider the prayer for settingaside the judgmentand decree and proceedingwith the suit afresh

¶27

Counsel for the petitionerssubmits that the trial coun erred in dismissingthe application^as barred by time The petitionersfiled objectionson the bonafide advice of their counsel The objections^were dismissed as not maintainableand therefore the periodspent in pursuing the obJectionshas^to be excludedunderA Section¹⁴ of the LimitationAct It IS further arguedthat the principleof Iis pendensdoes not apply^to the petitioners as respondentNos 1 2 and 8 colluded with^one another by abandoning^thedefence set up by^Darshan Singh^while obtainingthe decree

¶28

Counsel for the respondentshowever submits that the application^was admittedly^filedmore than three years after the death of Darshan Singh^The petitionerscannot be allowed^to exclude the periodof three years spent in pursuingtheir objectionsas subule 61of Rule 41of Order 22 allows condonation of delay under Section 5 but not under Section 14 of the Limitation Act As a consequence the delayeven if occasioned by a bonafide pursuitof a wron9remedycan notbe a ground to condone the delayin the filingof the application It is further submitted that Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act applyto different situations Seclion 5 applieswhere a partyis able to show suHicient cause for delay whereas Section 14 excludes the time spent in the bonafide pursuitof a

¶29

JOYTI RANI if at^ali by their counsel 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cannot be^heldtobethe

¶30

. Rashmi 2012.08.09 15: 04 wrongTrue Scannedremedy^Itis funher arguedthat the^error Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh

¶31

Ill filingobjectionsPHHC,Chandigarh before the ExecutingCourt cannot

C2 0 C I C5 I

I C6

17 Z

Civil

1 Revisiorl NoA427 of 1994

¶40

Il
4

¶41

bonafide pursuitof^a wrong remedyso^as to allow exclusion of this

¶42

while computingthe periodof Iimitation

¶43

have heard counsel for the partiesand perusedthe impugned

¶44

order

¶45

From the argumentsaddressed by counselforthe parties^the main questionthat emerges for consideration IS Whether the provisions ofSection¹⁴ of the^{LimitationAct} appiy^toan applicationfiied under Order 22 RuIe 4 subarules641and 51for settingaside^a judgmentand decree passed against^a deceased defendant without impleadinghis Iegal

¶46

Order 22 Rule 4 subules 51^and 61^asamended by^the

¶47

the Punjaband HaryanaHighCourt read^as follows

¶48

Order 22 Rule 4

¶49

111^Noabatement by partys^death if right to sue

¶50

survives e Xx Xx Xx 21 Xx XX XX 31 Where within the time Iimited by Iaw no application is made under sub^rule l l the suit

¶51

shall not abate^as against^thedeceasedm defendant and judgment^be pronounced

¶52

the death and shall have the same force and effect as lf it had been pronouncedbefore the death took place

¶53

41 If a decree has been passedagainsta deceasec

¶54

defendant a person claiming^to be his Iegal representativemay apply for setting aside the decree qua him and if it is provedthat he was not JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 aware of the^suitorthat he had not interltionally I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document failed to make^an applicationto bringhimself^on

¶55

. Rashmi 2012.08.09 15: 04 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh

NoA427 of 1994 5

0 C3 I C5 I

I a5 7

Civil Revision

the record the Court shall set aside the decree upon^suchterms as to costs or otherwise as thinksfit

¶63

¶64

51 Before settingaside the decree under suterule the Court must be satisfied primacie that had the Iegai been on the record a different result mighthave been reached in the suit

¶65

61 The provisions^ofSection 5 of the^Limitation Act 1 1963 shall apply^to 1 sub^rule Sub rule 31 prescribesthat where within the time Iimitedby Iaw no application^IS made under subule 1^thesuit shall not abate as against^the deceasediefendant and judgment^be pronounced the death Sub rule 41prescribesthat if^a decree has beeri passedunder sub rule 31 any person claimingto be the Iegal representative^ofthe deceased defendant may applyfor settingaside the decree qua him andifhe provesthathe^wasnotaware of the suit or that he had not intentionallyfailed to make^an applicationfor beingimpleaded as a party the court shall set aside the decree upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks6t Sub rule Sl prescribcsthat before setting aside such a decree the court must be satisfied^that had the Iegal representativesbeen on record a differentresult mighthave been reached in the suit Sub rule 61of RuIe 4 postulatesthat the provisionsof Section 5 of the LimitationAct 1963 shall applyto^an applicationOled undersube rule It is therefore apparent^that where a judgmentand decree^IS passed 1 against^{adeceasededefendant} his Iegalrepresentatives^may pray^for settingaside such a judgmentand decree providedtheysatisfythe

¶66

. Rashmi JOYTI RANI ingredients2012.08.09 15: 04True ScannedCopy Of the set outⁱⁿ subules 51and 61of Rule 40f Order 22 of the 2016.03.28 16:23I attest to the accuracy and Original integrity of this document CodePHHC,Chandigarh

¶67

¶68

1 C 0 C I 40 I Z r I 08

¶69

¶70

Civil Revision NoA427 of 1994

¶71

¶72

The argumentthat^as subule 61permits^{condonationof}

¶73

winder Section 5 and not under Section 14 of the LimitationAct the period spentⁱⁿ a bonafide prosecutionof an erroneous remedy^cannot be excluded whlle computingIimitation^inan application^fiied under subules 41^and 51^{ofRuIe40fOrder22ofthecodecannotbe} accepted^itistrue that subule 61^{doesnotrefertoSection14oftheLimitation Actand} therefore at first blush the argument^that Section¹⁴ does not apply^toan application^{fiiedundersubles} 41^{appearstobecorrect} However this argumentmust fail in view of the provisionsof Section 2921 of the Limitation Act which read^as followsl

¶74

U29 SavingSe

¶75

11 Xx XX Xx 21 VVhereany special^or Iocal iaw prescribesfor any su appeal^or application^a periodof^Iimitation different from the periodprescribedby the Schedule the provisionsof section 3 shall applyas if such period were the periodprescribedbythe Schedule and for the purpose^of determiningany period^of Iimitation prescribed^foranysuit appeal^or applicationby^any special^or iocal Iaw the provisionscontained 1^tl sections 4 to 24 nclusivelshall applyonlyin^so far^as and to the extent to which they^are not expressly excluded by such speciaior Iocal Iaw 31

¶76

Section 29 21^{oftheLimitationAct} postulates^thatwheteany

¶77

special^or Iocal^Iaw prescribesany periodof Iimitation diHerent^from the periodprescribedby^{theScheduIe to} the^Limitation Act the provisionsof

¶78

Section 30f the LimitationAct 1 the bar of Iimitation shall apply^as if the

¶79

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶80

. Rashmi period2012.08.09 15: 04True Scanned^hadbeen prescribed^{undertheLimitation} Act Copy Of the Original PHHC,ChandigarhSection 2921^further provides^that Sections 4 to 24 of the

0 C I C5 I

I a5

Civil Revision NoA427 of 1994

¶89

ee7m

¶90

Limitation Act shall apply to any suit application^or proceedings Insofar and^to the^extent they^are not expresslyexcluded by any special^or Iocal Iaw It would necessarilyfollow that where a specialor Iocal Iaw does not expresslyexclude the applicabilityof Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act these provisionsshall applyto any suit application^or proceedings^{under the Code}

¶91

A perusalof submrule61 discloses that it does not expressly exclude the applicabilityof Section 14 of the Limitation Act The mere absence of^a reference^to Section¹⁴ of the LimitationAct in subule would not raise^an inference that Section¹⁴ of the LimitationAct stands excluded from its applicabilityto^an applicationfiled under suberule 41of Rule 40f Order 22 of the Code For this conclusions sustenance nlay be drawn from a Judgmerlt^of Honble Supreme^Court reported^as GonsoNdated Encneennq Entemnses V Principal Secrety

¶92

nation Department^and others 2008 S l where while consideringa sirnilar questionthoughin the corltext of the provisionsof The Arbitration and ConciliationAct 1996 the Honbie SupremeCourt held as foilowsl

¶93

20 Section 2921 of the Limitation Act inter alia provides^{that where} any special^{orIocal Iaw} prescribes for any suit appeal^or applicationa periodof Iimitation different from the periodof Iimitationprescribedby the Schedule the provisionsof Section 3 shall apply^as if such period^was the periodprescribedby the ScheduIe and for tho purpose of determiningany period of Iimitationprescribedfor any suit appeol^or application

¶94

by any special^{orIocal Iaw} the provisions^{contained In} JOYTI RANI Sections 4 tc 24 shall applyonlyinsofar as and^to 2016.03.28 16:23I attest to the accuracy and^the integrity of this document extent theyare not expresslyexcluded by such special

¶95

. Rashmi 2012.08.09 15: 04 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh

0 3 I C5 I

I a5

Civil Revision NoA427 of 1994

¶104

¶105

or Iocal Iaw When any specialstatute certain periodof Iimitation^as well as provisionfor extension up to specifiedtimeimit on sufficient^cause being^shown then the periodof Iimitationprescribed under the specialIaw shall prevailand to that extent the provisionsof the Limitation Act shall stand excluded As the intentionofthe Iegislaturein enacting subsectior31^{ofSection34oftheActisthatthe} applicationfor setting^aside the^{awardshould be} made within three months and the period can be futther extended^on sufficient^cause beingshown by^another periodof³⁰ daysbut^{notthereaflcrthiscourt} is of^the opinion^that the provisionsof Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be applicabiebecause the applicabilityof Section 50f the Limitation Act stands excluded because of the provisionsof Section 2921of the LimitationAct However merelybecause it is held that Section 50f the LimitationAct is not applicable¹⁰

¶106

an applIcationfiled under Section 34 of the Act for setting^asidean awa one need nct conclude that provisions^ofSection14 of^{IhoLimitation} Act would also not be applicableto an application^submitted under Section 34 ofthe Act of 1996 Il

¶107

Another judgmentthat may be referred to IS reported as Jude Tod 2006161 SC 125State of G V Mls Western

¶108

BuiidersI

¶109

1 5 But there is no provisionmade in The Arbitration and

¶110

. Rashmi JOYTI RANI 2012.08.09 15: 04True Scanned ConciIiationAct 1996 that if any partyhas bona fidely 2016.03.28 16:23 Copy Of the I attest to the accuracy and Original integrity of this document PHHC,Chandigarh prosecuted^its remedy before the other forunl which

0 0 I 0

I a5

7 Z

e4^{CivilRevisionNo4427of1994}

¶118

¶119

had^no jurisdictionthen in that case whether the spent¹¹⁷ prosecutingthe remedybona fidelyⁱⁿ that court^can be excluded^or not As per^the provision^of subvsection 31 of Section 34 which prescribesthe period^of Iimitation 3 months for moving^the application^for settingaside^{the awardbefore the} court that periodof Iimitationwill be applicableand not the period^of Iimitation prescribed in schedule under Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1963 Thus the provision of moving^the applicationprescribed^In Limitation Act shall stand excluded by virtue of sul section 21 of Section 29 as under this special enactment the periodof Iimitationhas alreadybeen prescribed^Likewisethe period^{ofcondonationof} delayle 30 daysby virtueof proviso

¶120

¶121

18 There is^no provisionin whole of the Act which prohibit discretion of the Court Under^Section14 of the Limitation Act if the party has been bona fidely prosecuting^his remedy^beforethe court which has no jurisdiction^whether the period spent In that proceedings^shall be excluded or no Leamed us to the counsel for the respondenthas taken provisions^of the^Act of^{1996Iike Section} 5^Section 8 11 Section 9 Section 11 sulsectiot4191 and subsection 31^{ofSection14Section 27Sections} 34 36 37 3921 41 Section 41 subsectiur21 Section 42 and 43 and tried to ernphasiswith reference to the JOYTI RANI aforesaid sections that the Iegislaturewhersver wanted 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document to givepower to the court that has been incorpoatedin

¶122

. Rashmi 2012.08.09 15: 04 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh

400

1 r 0 C I C5 I

I 08

NoA427 of 1994 1 0

7 Z

the provisionstherefore^no furtherpower should Iieⁱⁿ 1 the hands of the court^so as to enable to exclude the period spent Ill prosecutingremedybefore other forum It is true but at the^same time there is no prohibitionincorporatedin statute for curtailingthe power^{ofthecourtunderSection14oftheLimitation} Act Much dependsupon the words used in statue 8 not generalprinciplesapplicableBy vinue of Section 43 of the Act of 1996 the Limitation Act appliesto the proceedings^{underthe Act} of¹⁹⁹⁶ and^the provisions of LimitationAct^can onlystand excluded^to the exlent wherever different periodhas been prescribedunder the Act 1996 Since there^IS110 prohibitionprovided under Section 34 there^isno reason why^Sectioo14 of LimitationAct cant be read in Act of 1996 which will advance the^cause of justicef statute is silenl and there is no specificprohibitionthen statute should be interpreted^which advances the^cause of justice Our attention was invited to various decisions of this Cou bul we shall^refertoafew of^{themwhichhassome} relevance It

¶130

It is therefore beyonddebate that where a specialstatute does not specificailyexclude the applicabilityof the provisionsof Sections 4^to 24 of the LimitationAct these provisionswould applyto^a suit appeal^Or application^As neither the Code of Civil Procedure nor ttie amended provisions of Rule 4 ie subles 41 51^and 161specifically^excludethe applicabilityof Sections 4^to 24 of the Liinitatiotl Act the pvisions 01 . Rashmi JOYTI RANI Section2012.08.09 15: 04True ScannedCopy Of the14 would applyto^an applicationfiled under sublle of Rule 2016.03.28 16:23I attest to the accuracy and 4 Original integrity of this document of OrderPHHC,Chandigarh22 of the Code for settingaside a judgnleritand decree passed t

401

j 0 C I C5 I Z

r I a5

7 Z

lt Civii Revision NoA427 of 1994 41

¶136

against^{adeceasededefendant without} impleading 4 The^next questionis^an appendageof the first questionCounsel for the respondentshas arguedthat as SecUons 5 and 14 operate Ill differentfields the absence of a reference to Section 14 of the Limitation Act Itl sutrule 61^would necessarily^bara court from entertainingan application^undersubule 61 read^{withSection14} of^{theLimitationAct} There^can be no quarreiwith the argumentthat as Sections 5 of the LimitationAct requires^an applicantto show sumcient^cause for the delay whereas Section 14 of the Limitation Act providesfor exclusion of the period spentⁱⁿ a bonafide prosecutionof a wrong remedydespitethe exercise of due diligence The diHerence between Sections 5 and 14 wouid not give rise to a conclusion that the absence of a reference to Section 14 in Suberule 61 would oust its applicabilityⁱⁿ view of the provisionsof Section 2921of the LimitationAct

¶137

In view of what has been observed in the precedingpart of this judgment^it is^heldthatthe provisionsof^Section14 of the^Limitation Act would applyto an applicationOledunder Order 22 RuIe 4 for settingaside^a judgmentand decree passed against^a deceaseddefendant without impleadinghis Iegalrepresentatives

¶138

The next questionthat requiresconsideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the petitionerswho have been held to be the Iegalrepresentativesof Darshan Singh deceased have satisfied the requirementsof^Section14 of^{theLimitation} Act

¶139

In order to succeed in an applicationfiled under Section¹⁴ of the LimitationAct the applicantwould be required^to establish due diligence and good^faith in prosecutinga wrong remedy Section 14 aHords protection^to Iitigantsagains t he bar of Iimitation when on accountofa

¶140

. Rashmi JOYTI RANI bonafide2012.08.09 15: 04True ScannedCopy Of the^error proceedingsare institutedbefore a wrong court An element 2016.03.28 16:23I attest to the accuracy and Original integrity of this document of mistalPHHC,ChandigarhIS inherent in an applicationfiled unoer Section 14 and

402

L 0 0 I C5 I

I 08

Z Qm

1t Civil Revision NoA427 of¹⁹⁹⁴ 42 0

¶147

therefore the section providesrelief where a partyselects a wrong

¶148

¶149

account of^a bonafide errorFhe wron9^adviceofa counsel in my considered opinioncannot be excluded from the scope of Section 14 and if established may be sufOcientto exclude the periodspent in pursuitof^a wrongremedy^{In this} regard^{areference may} be^{made to} paragraph²² of the Judgmentof Honble SupremeCourt in Consolidated Engineeg

¶150

Epies v Plincipal^{SecretarvIrriqation} Depament and oth

¶151

supra

¶152

22 The policyof section is to afford protection^to a Iitigant against^{thebarofIimitation} when he^institutesa proceeding^which by reason of^some technical defect cannot be decided on merits and is dismissecl While considering^the provisions^of Section 14 of the Limitation Act proper approachwill have to be adopted and the provisionswill have to be interpretedso^as to advance the^cause of justice^{ratherthanabortthe} proceedingst^willbe well^to bear^{it7 mindthatan} element of mistake is inherent in the invocation of Section 1 ln fact the section^is intended to provide relief againstthe bar of Iimitationin^cases of^mistakcn remedy^or selection of a wrong forum On readirIg Section 14 of the Act it becomes clear that the Iegislature^has enacted^the said section to exeml5ta certain period covered by a bonafide Iitigiousactivity Uponthe words used in^{the sectionit} is not possible^to sustain the that the principleunderlying the said section namely^that the bar of Iirnitaticn JOYTI RANI should not affect^a perSonhonestlydoing his best 2016.03.28 16:23I attest to the accuracy and to integrity of this document gel^hiscase tried on merits but failirigbecause lho

¶153

. Rashmi 2012.08.09 15: 04 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh

403

0 C I C5 I

I 08

CiviI Revision NoA427f 1994 4 3e

¶161

court is unable to givehim such a trial would not be applicable^toan application^filed under^Section34 of the Act of 1996 The principleis clearlyapplicablenot only^toacase in which a Iitigantbringshis application in the Coutt that is a court havingno jurisdictionto entertain it but also where he bringsthe suit or the applicationin the wrong ourt in consequence of bona fide mistake^or SlC oo Iaw or defect of procedure Havingregard^{totheintention} of the Iegislature^this Coutt is of the firm opinionthat the equityunderlying Setion 14 should be appliedto its fullest extent and time taken diligentlypursuing^a remedyⁱⁿ a wrong court should be excludecl

¶162

¶163

The petitionersurge that the period spent In prosecutingthe objections^{filedbeforethe} Executingcourt^{hastobeexcludedas} they reposedimplicit^{faith in} the^advice of their counsel and despite^the exercise of due diligence^were not^aware that his advice was wrong The^trial court has held that the wrong advice of the counsel cannot be accepted^as a ground^toexclude the period spentⁱⁿ prosecutingthe objectionsfiled before the ExecutingCourt The findingrecorded by the trial coui1 in my considered opinionis flawed A Iitigantinitiatesproceedingscn the implicit fith that the advice profferedby his counsel is correct and^bonaOde To hold that the advice of a counsel that^IS subsequentlyfound to be erroneous cannot be a groundto exclude the periodspent in prosecutinga wrong remedywould in my considered opinionbe^a travenityofjustice^as such a view would deprivea Iitigantof^an adjudicatoryforum

¶164

. Rashmi JOYTI RANI 2012.08.09 15: 04True ScannedCopy Of theIn the present case a counsei advised the petitioners^to 2016.03.28 16:23I attest to the accuracy and file Original integrity of this document objectionsPHHC,Chandigarh^{before the} ExecutingCoun The ExecutingCoun held that the

404

6 j

1 0 C C5

V7 Z

Civil Revision No427 of 1994 14

¶172

objections^are not^{maintainableand} made^{anobservation thatthe} correct

¶173

to file^an applicationfor beingimpleadedas Iegal of the deceaseciefendant As^{statedhereinbeforeinherentin} a plea raised under Section 14 of the Act is^a bonafide but^erroneous choice of^a jurisdictionalforum selected despitethe exercise of due diligence In the present^case the error on the part of the counsel Ill advising^the petitioners^tofile objectionscannot^beheld agains t he petitioners^It IS true that ignorance of Iaw is no excuse but courts have often take a pragmaticview that the wrong advice of^a counsel^isa groundfor invoking the provisionsof Section 14 of the LimitationAct It has been repeatedly held that^a bonafide^error made by^a counsel should not^visita party^with consequencesthat deprivesuch^a partyof^an adjudicatoryforum

¶174

In view of what has been stated herein above am satisfied^that the filing of objectionsbefore the ExecutingCourt was a bonafide prosecution^of a wrong remedyand therefore the period spent^Ill prosecuting^thewrong remedy^hasto be excluded while computing iimitation under subule 61^ofRuIe40f Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure

¶175

Before partingwith the judgmentit would be necessary to mention that the suit Iandwas sold and mortgagedto the petitionersduring the pendencyof the suit A vendee pendenteIite IS bound by^any judgement^thathasbeen passedagainst^his vendor The onlyexception to this rule is where the decree has been obtained by collusior The petitionershave allegedthat respondentsno 1 and 2 colluded^with the wife of Darshan Singh^andobtaineda collusive decree by discardingthe original^defenceset up by^Darshan Singh^that he is the sole^owner of the suit Iand The plea of collusion if established would entitlethe petitioners

¶176

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶177

. Rashmi to urge2012.08.09 15: 04True Scanned that theyare not bound by the decree Copy Of the Original PHHC,ChandigarhIn view of what has been stated herein above the revision

¶178

405

¶179

Civil Revision NoA427 of¹⁹⁹⁴

¶180

e 1
1

¶181

4ljy petition^isallowedthe delay^inthe fiiing^ofthe application^for setting^aside N70iudgmentand decree dated 12091 990 is condonecl However^as the trial cout1 has not recorded any 6ndingin terms of subules 41and 51^of Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Punjab^and HanlanaHigh^{Courtthematterisremittedto} successor court 01 the then Sub Judge^Ist Class Kapunhala^todecide the same in 1r accordance with Iaw Parties^are directed to appear before the^successor 0 court to the then Sub Judge Ist Class Kapurthala^{on1811 2009for} 0 further proceedings 0 I 91Idlti9 C5 Octobe6 2009 Ll 1RAJIVEBHALLAI nt JUDGE Z eenj tl S 4 lQ 1 dr . Rashmi 2012.08.09 15: 04 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh

¶182

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Avtar Singh v. Sohan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avtar Singh v. Sohan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saroop Singh Vs Raj Kumar

Balbir Singh Vs Hry. State Agri. Marketing Board

State of Haryana and Ors. Vs R.M.S. Malik and Anr.

Ram Kanwar Vs Satbir Singh and Another

Sonia Jain Vs Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and Ors.

Gurdial Kaur and Ors. Vs Gurnam Singh and Ors.