PURAN SINGH Vs. GAMDUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has been filed against the order of the learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Phul, dated the December 5, 1972, dismissing the application under Order 1 rule 10 and section 151 of the Code.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the order dated February 9, 1970, of the Collector was void and for possession of the suit property by way of redemption. During the course of the proceedings, it was revealed that one of the defendants, Raunaq Ram had died before the filing of the suit. Consequently, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 1, rule 10 of the Code for impleading his heirs as defendants. This application was dismissed by the learned Sub-Judge on the ground that the same had been filed beyond one year of the order of the Collector when the limitation for filing of the suit had expired.

(3.) Mr. D.S. Chahal, the learned counsel for the appellant, has challenged the correctness of the order on the ground that in the present case, the Collector having declined to pass any order on the ground that the case involved a complicated question of law, there was no order passed under section 12 of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act (hereinafter called the Act) and as such it was not necessary for the plaintiff to challenge the order of the Collector within one year of the date of its passing by the Collector. Reliance for this argument was placed on a Full Bench decision of Lahore High Court in Tulsi Dass alias Nirmal Das and others v. Diala Ram, 1943 AIR(Lah) 176, wherein it was held that when the Collector has dismissed the petition for summary redemption on the ground that the principal money has not become payable, the omission to sue under section 12 within the period prescribed by Article 14, Limitation Act, does not bar the right of the mortgagor to redeem the mortgage.