Dismissed

Madan Lal v. Jaspal and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Mar 2010CR/5183/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Executing Court's rejection of a fresh argument that an amendment application was time-barred. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding the petitioner could not re-argue on limitation as the previous revision reserved only that issue and remitted the matter. The Court granted liberty to raise limitation arguments before the Executing Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty to raise limitation arguments before the Executing Court; parties directed to appear on 3.4.2010.

Madan Lal Vs Jaspal and Ors. — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 5183 of 2007

¶2

(1)

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Civil Revision No. 5183 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.3.2010

Madan Lal

..... Petitioner

Jaspal and others

..... Respondents

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶11

Present: Mr. H. R. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. S. K. Jain, Advocate, for respondent no. 7.

¶13

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶14

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 21.9.2007 passed by the learned court below in execution proceedings of judgment and decree passed by the civil court on 27.2.1959 which was upheld upto this court in RSA No. 1888 of 1968 decided on 27.8.1980. During the execution proceedings, the decree holder filed application for amendment claiming plots no. 3 to 6 measuring 1423-1/3 square yards which was allowed by the learned Executing Court on 17.4.2001.

¶15

The order passed by the court below was challenged by the judgment debtors in this court by filing Civil Revision No. 3169 of 2001 titled as Amritpal and others vs Ajay Pal and others which was disposed of on 22.3.2006. The contention of the judgment debtors in the aforesaid petition was that amendment being time barred should not have been allowed. The petition was disposed of on the statement of learned counsel appearing for the decree-holder that the question of limitation be kept open and the order passed by the learned Executing Court upholding the amendment within limitation be set aside to that extent.

¶16

In view of the statement of learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ decree-holder in the aforesaid petition, the matter was remitted back to the Executing Court to consider all the objections raised by the judgment-debtors and to proceed with the execution petition in accordance with law. After the decision of the aforesaid petition, the petitioner/judgment-debtor sought to address arguments against the amendment application afresh for its re-consideration.The prayer having been rejected, the order is impugned in the present petition.

¶17

(2)

¶18

Civil Revision No. 5183 of 2007

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the earlier order passed by the learned Executing court on 17.4.2001 was set aside, he had a right to re-argue the application for amendment afresh as the same could not have been allowed considering the provisions of Order 21 Rule 17 (2) CPC read with Article 136 of the Limitation Act being beyond limitation. The learned court below having not considered that argument, the order deserves to be set aside.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 7 submitted that in the earlier petition where the challenge was to the order dated 17.4.2001 allowing the amendment application filed by the respondents, the order was set aside to the extent the amendment was held to be within limitation and the matter was remitted back to the learned Executing Court to consider the issue of limitation and to proceed with the execution in accordance with law. Hence, no case for setting aside the order is made out as the petitioner is seeking to reargue the amendment application, which cannot be permitted.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-

¶22

book.

¶23

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the contention raised by him is totally misconceived. In fact, as is evident from the impugned order, he prayed for decision of the amendment application in the execution proceedings afresh whereas while deciding Civil Revision no. 3169 of 2001, this court had limited the argument of the petitioner on that application only on the issue of limitation and the matter was remitted back to be considered in accordance with law.

¶24

Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, there is no ground to challenge the impugned order passed by the Executing Court. The petitioner will have liberty to raise arguments showing that the amendment was not within limitation and thereafter the learned court below shall proceed with the case in terms of order passed in earlier petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

The parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court

¶26

on 3.4.2010.

¶27

17.3.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge

Madan Lal v. Jaspal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Lal v. Jaspal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahinder Pal and Ors. Vs Hari Saran and Ors.

Nirmal Singh Vs Gurmukh Singh & Ors.

State of Haryana Vs Ratna etc.

Santosh Kumari Vs Ayub & Ors.

Rameshwar Dayal Vs Ayub & Ors.

Rameshwar Dayal & Anr. Vs Ayub & Ors.