VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE present regular appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction has been declined.
(2.) THE plaintiffs appellants had filed a suit for declaration that they had purchased some plots situated in Bhagat Singh Park, Model Town Yamuna Nagar in a public auction on 31.5.1969. It was also case of the plaintiffs that initially amount of auction sale was deposited at the spot, however, thereafter they did not deposit anything in spite of number of opportunities. Thereafter, above mentioned suit was filed in the year 1991. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit by observing that the plaintiffs appellants could not be declared to be owner or bona fide purchaser as admittedly no sale-deed was executed. The other issues were decided against the appellants by observing that it was not open to the appellants plaintiffs to approach the Court after a period of 20 years and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. The learned lower appellate Court while dismissing the appeal was pleased to observe as under :- "10. I agree with the counsel for the appellants that on the basis of limitation the plaintiffs cannot be non-suited. Because no contrary limitation with regard to rejection of the auction has been sent to the plaintiffs. Thus, to that extent the findings of the learned trial Court are set aside. However, the plaintiffs having approached the court after a period of more than 20 years, it cannot be said that suddenly a cause of action has accrued to the plaintiffs. Be that as it may, the fact remains that no right has accrued to the plaintiffs, so as to give a declaration of the ownership to the plaintiffs and to direct the defendants to confirm the auction and to accept the balance sale consideration. In such circumstances, thus, the suit of the plaintiffs is devoid of force and the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit. However, keeping in view the nature of the dispute, I consider it appropriate that defendants may consider the cases of the plaintiffs for allotment within one month as per their policy and if the plaintiffs are not found eligible, then the amount deposited by them be returned back with simple interest @ 6% per annum. With this observation, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Trial Court record be returned. Appeal file be consigned to record room." The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that once the above observation was made by the appellate authority, it was not open to it to have dismissed their appeal especially when the suit filed was held to be within limitation. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hafazat Hussain v. Abdul Majeed, 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 334 to contend that the High Court in the given circumstances can certainly interfere in the concurrent finding of fact if the interest of justice so requires. In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down that the Second Appellate Court can certainly interfere to correct the illegality and irregularity committed by the Courts below.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and find no force in the contention raised by him. It is not in dispute that the appellant- plaintiffs were not owner of the property and mere representation or visit to office could not be a ground to extend the period of limitation and, therefore, the learned trial Court was right in rejecting the suit filed by the appellants by holding it to be not-maintainable and also not within limitation. The learned lower appellate Court was not right in observing that the suit was within limitation. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.;