KODU RAM Vs. AMRITI DEVI
LAWS(HPH)-1991-10-16
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on October 24,1991

KODU RAM Appellant
VERSUS
AMRITI DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.K.MEHROTRA,J. - (1.) This is a revision petition under section 115, C. P. C.
(2.) In Civil Suit No. 19 of 1969 instituted by one Shri Rania Ram whose heirs are the respondents in this Court except for the 7th respondent who is a proforma respondent, a preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court on November 26, 1977 in a mortgage suit against applicant Kodu Ram who is sole defendant. The decree provided that the plaintiff would be entitled to redeem the mortgaged land on deposit of a sum of Ks. 533.34 within one month of the passing of the decree. An amount of Rs. 534 was deposited by the decree -holder on December 24, 1973, that is, within the aforesaid period of one month of the passing of the preliminary decree. Thereafter, the decree -holder applied for the preparation of the final decree. An order was passed by the learned Senior Sub -Judge, Kangra, at Dharamshala on August 7, 1976 saying that the Counsel for the respondent (defendant -judgment -debtor) did not oppose the application subject to the objection with regard to the deposit of the redemption money within limitation. The learned Judge found that the amount had been deposited within the period allowed to the decree -holder and said in his order? "......That being so the applicant -plaintiff is entitled to a final decree as prayed for. It is accordingly ordered that the final decree as prayed for be prepared and the file be consigned to the record -room after completion."
(3.) On March 6, 1987 the decree -holder filed an execution petition (No. 31 of 1987). the basic objections which were taken on behalf of the judgment -debtor were that the execution petition had been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation of .12 years under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, inasmuch as the preliminary decree passed on November 26,1973 was the executable decree and that the decree could not be executed also for the reason that the property involved in the suit had been compulsorily acquired by the State Government for the Pong Dam and had vested in it free from any encumbrances when the State Government -took possession thereof These objections were rejected by the learned Senior Sub -Judge, Kangra, at Dharamshala on May )1, 1991. Against that order the present revision has been filed by the judgment -debtor.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.