- (1.)THIS order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 9251 of 1992 and 9252 of 1992 as common question of law and fact are involved therein. The facts have, however, been extracted from C. W. P. No. 9251 of 1992, Smt. Ram Piari v. Collector etc. As to whether a just, rightful and meritorious cause can be defeated on mere technicalities which have nothing to do with the merit of the case, is the question that has been posed in the present writ. The facts of the case need to be noticed first.
(2.)PETITIONERS mortgaged their land in favour of Dalip Kaur in the year 1967 for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/ -. Dalip Kaur further mortgaged her mortgagee rights in favour of Darshan Singh and Sardool Singh, who further mortgaged their rights in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 10, who were in possession of the land at the relevant time when application under Section 4 of the Redemption of Mortgage Act, 1913 was filed before the Collector. The application aforesaid was filed on February 28, 1988 well within stipulated period demanding redemption as the statutory period of 30 years for closure of the redemption by aflux of time had since not expired. The fact that the mortgage money was deposited in the Court and that too by an order of the Court vide challan receipt, has not been disputed. However, the case was adjourned from time to time and both the parties led their evidence to prove their contentions. When the case was ripe for arguments in the month of September, 1991. respondent No. 7 Sudesh Kumar filed an application before the Collector, Abohar for dismissal of the redemption application for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 4 of the Redemption of Mortgage Act, 1913, (here-in-after referred to as the Act of 1913 ). It is pleaded that the Collector-without going into the merits of the case, passed order Annexure P-4 rejecting the application on the sole ground that it did not contain proper verification as envisaged under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1913. It is this order which has been challenged in the present writ filed on behalf of Ram Piari and others.
(3.)THE matter has been contested and in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 7 it has been pleaded that the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1913 are mandatory, non compliance whereof had necessarily to result in rejection of the application filed under Section 4 of the Act.