GOPAL SARDAR Vs. KARUNA SARDAR
LAWS(SC)-2004-3-4
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
March 09,2004
GOPAL SARDAR
Appellant
VERSUS
KARUNA SARDAR
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
GOBIND DAYAL V. INAYATUILAH [REFERRED TO]MOOL CHAND V. GANGA JAL [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHALYA RANI VS. GOPAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
HUKUMDEV NARAIN YADAV VS. LALIT NARAIN MISHRA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX U P LUCKNOW VS. PARSON TOOLS AND PLANTS KANPUR [REFERRED TO]
MANGU RAM RAM PERSHAD GONDAMAL VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI:MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
ANWARI BASAVARAJ PATIL VS. SIDDARAMAIAH [REFERRED TO]
MUKRI GOPALAN VS. CHEPPILAT PUTHANPURAYIL ABOOBACKER [REFERRED TO]
MATTOO DEVI VS. DAMODAR LAL [REFERRED TO]
SERISH MAJI VS. NISHIT KUMAR DOLUI [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
JAGANNATH DUDADHAR VS. SALE TAX OFFICER [LAWS(DLH)-2008-10-86] [REFERRED TO]JOAO SEBASTIAO LOBO VS. ADMINISTRATOR OF COMMUNIDADES OF BARDEZ [LAWS(BOM)-2014-1-109] [REFERRED TO]
B.K. BOHRE AND ORS. VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-2-19] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE DURGA RICE MILL VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
FAIRGROWTH INVESTMENTS LTD VS. CUSTODIAN [LAWS(SC)-2004-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
GIRNAR TRADERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2011-1-52] [REFERRED TO]
UPENDRA JENA VS. REGIONAL DIRECTOR [LAWS(ORI)-2009-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD ABAAD ALI VS. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE PROSECUTION INTELLIGENCE [LAWS(SC)-2024-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
SONIA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2014-9-61] [REFERRED TO]
KESHAVLAL FULABHAI VYAS VS. DEPUTY ENGINEER (O AND M) [LAWS(GJH)-2023-1-1952] [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA SANJAY GANDHI VS. RAMBHUAL NISHAD [LAWS(ALL)-2024-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
UMESH TUKARAM KAMBLE VS. SHAMRAO SAKHARAM PATIL [LAWS(BOM)-2007-10-161] [REFERRED TO]
BABU RAM VS. NARESH KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2005-9-28] [REFERRED TO]
PHARMA KURIES P LTD VS. T J SOJU [LAWS(KER)-2006-8-90] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK KHOSLA VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-392] [REFERRED TO]
SHARMAJI TEXTILES VS. SANDEEP TRADERS [LAWS(BOM)-2009-1-86] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. BAJRANG DAL MILLS [LAWS(ALL)-2005-9-94] [REFERRED TO]
MOSLEMA BIBI VS. ALEYA BIBI [LAWS(CAL)-2015-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT MONDAL VS. TAPAN KUMAR GHANA [LAWS(CAL)-2013-4-69] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. JASIRUDDIN TALUKDAR [LAWS(GAU)-2010-6-26] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS VS. TRITRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LTD [LAWS(HPH)-2018-6-44] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL WINDER VS. PRESIDING OFFICER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
LEKHA DUARY VS. RANJIT RANA [LAWS(CAL)-2011-6-62] [REFEREED TO]
NURUL ISLAM VS. ESRATUN BIBI [LAWS(CAL)-2017-7-133] [REFERRED TO]
GOLAM MUSTAFA HAIDARI VS. SAYEED SHEKH [LAWS(CAL)-2012-2-26] [REFERRED TO]
REV. K.V. ABRAHAM VS. COMMISSIONER, VARANASI [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
PRASANTA KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY SINCE DECEASED VS. GITARANI PAL & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-12-53] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMA PRASED MONDAL VS. SUSANTA KUMAR SAHA [LAWS(CAL)-2019-1-100] [REFERRED TO]
SWAJIT SANKAR MOOKHERJEE VS. ANUPAM KOLEY [LAWS(CAL)-2024-3-196] [REFERRED TO]
LEGAL HEIRS OF HANESHWAR DEKA VS. LEGAL HEIRS OF MANESWAR DEKA [LAWS(GAU)-2012-4-98] [REFERRED TO]
MANGLESH CHAMPAKLAL GANDHI VS. ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2019-10-10] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VS. N.H. POLYMERS [LAWS(BOM)-2007-11-126] [REFERRED TO]
PETRONET CCK LIMITED VS. MEERAN [LAWS(KER)-2005-1-47] [REFERRED TO]
SAJ FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2020-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ABDUL RAZAAK [LAWS(MAD)-2024-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. GANGABEN POLABHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2007-3-79] [REFERRED TO]
SETH BASHIDHAR KEDIA RICE MILLS PVT LTD VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2011-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJAKSHI (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. & OTHERS VS. CHANDRIKA & OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2016-2-69] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING COMMITTEE OF MADRASA DARUL HODA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-8-132] [REFERRED TO]
KAPIL AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-5-45] [REFERRED TO]
KABUL CHAWLA VS. CPI INDIA REAL ESTATE VENTURES LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
SAROJA NARASIMHAN W/O NARASIMHAN VS. VIJAYA SHARMA W/O NAGABUSHAN SHARMA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
D UMARANI W/O MALLIKARJUNA RAO VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KARIMNAGAR [LAWS(APH)-2015-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
HANESWAR DEKA (D) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS & ORS. VS. MANESHWAR DEKA (D) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS & ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2012-4-105] [REFERRED TO]
SUDIPTA KOLEY VS. M. BHOWMICK [LAWS(CAL)-2019-7-88] [REFERRED TO]
UTPAL KUMAR SAHA VS. SUJAN BHOWANI [LAWS(CAL)-2013-4-66] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. SALORA INTERNATIONAL [LAWS(ALL)-2005-9-319] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR AGNIHOTRI VS. SUNDARI DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2004-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
MADHUKAR GOVINDRAO THAWARE VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-10-25] [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DILIP KUMAR SAHA [LAWS(DR)-2012-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH DHALI VS. RAM CHANDRA MANDAL [LAWS(CAL)-2009-11-23] [REFERRED TO]
RATIPATI BANDOPADHYAY VS. MRINALINI DEBI [LAWS(CAL)-2005-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
M/S KASH VS. THE J& [LAWS(J&K)-2017-12-115] [REFERRED TO]
Sheetal Enterprises VS. Union of India [LAWS(BOM)-2005-10-108] [REFERRED TO]
KURJIBHAI MOHANBHAI GOTI VS. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2023-2-1217] [REFERRED TO]
MASTER SHARMA VS. ADDITIONAL MEMBER [LAWS(PAT)-2004-7-138] [REFERRED TO]
PUNYADEO SHARMA VS. ADDITIONAL MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE [LAWS(PAT)-2004-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK VS. COMPETENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(MAD)-2006-9-22] [REFERRED TO]
BALESHWAR DAYAL JAISWAL VS. BANK OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2015-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
BARASAT EYE HOSPITAL VS. KAUSTABH MONDAL [LAWS(SC)-2019-10-67] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL MATIN MALLICK VS. SUBRATA BHATTACHARJEE (BANERJEE) [LAWS(SC)-2022-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN ENTERPRISE VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2020-12-27] [REFERRED TO]
TARULATA MAHANTA VS. HARIPADA SARKAR [LAWS(CAL)-2012-1-36] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR MANNA VS. GAFFAR MOLLA [LAWS(CAL)-2023-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KHELAK VS. RAHUL AMEN MALLICK [LAWS(CAL)-2014-9-122] [REFERRED TO]
SHEIKH RAHAMTULLA VS. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY [LAWS(CAL)-2023-3-156] [REFERRED TO]
HAFIZUDDIN VS. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2005-12-148] [REFERRED TO]
AXIS BANK LIMITED VS. NAREN SHETH [LAWS(SC)-2023-9-49] [REFERRED TO]
VALLABHA REAL ESTATE PVT LTD VS. BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2015-4-198] [REFERRED TO]
H.UMA MAHESWARI VS. K.GOVINDASWAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2022-10-210] [REFERRED TO]
KASHINATH MONDAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-12-42] [REFERRED TO]
TAPAN KUMAR GHANA VS. SANKARI BALA SANTRA [LAWS(CAL)-2011-11-47] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMPALAL HARAKCHAND VS. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (C.E.O.) SRA [LAWS(BOM)-2024-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
N. KOTRESH VS. R. KEMPARAJU AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2016-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
SWAJIT SANKAR MOOKHERJEE VS. GOUTAM GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-2024-3-197] [REFERRED TO]
FARHAN SHAIKH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-183] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2009-7-52] [REFERRED TO]
A V U ENGINEERS PVT LTD VS. APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CT HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2005-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
DEO RAJ VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-3-48] [REFERRED TO]
AKSHAT COMERCISL PVT LTD VS. KALPANA CHAKRABORTY [LAWS(CAL)-2010-4-89] [REFERRED TO]
ROLAND EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST VS. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD VS. SASEENDRAN NAIR [LAWS(KER)-2004-11-78] [REFERRED TO]
PETRONET CCK LTD VS. VIJAYAN [LAWS(KER)-2005-1-50] [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN VS. BHAGAT RAM [LAWS(P&H)-2007-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IV VS. SIKANDARKHAN N TUNVAR [LAWS(GJH)-2013-5-98] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4688 OF 1998.
The respondent made an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (for brevity 'the Act') in the Munsif Court claiming right of pre-emption on the basis of vicinage being the owner of adjoining plots of land purchased on 20-7-1966 and 1-6-1981. According to her, the appellant tried to take forcible possession of the plot No. 1368 adjoining to the east of his land. It is her case that she came to know on 18-9-1985 that the appellant had purchased the said plot No. 1368 on 17-8-1979, which is adjoining the respondent's plot No. 1366. The appellant contested the case denying the material incidents and inter alia contending that the application made under Section 8 of the Act was barred by limitation. The Munsif Court condoned the delay on the ground that the respondent had no knowledge of the sale till the date of application and that there was sufficient cause for not making the application within time but dismissed the application on merits finding that on the date of transfer, the respondent was not possessing the longest common boundary. The appeal filed by the respondent against the said order of the Munsif Court was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. In other words, on merits, the learned Addl. District Judge concurred with the finding recorded by the Munsif Court and reversed its finding on the limitation holding that the application filed by the respondent was barred by time. The respondent approached the High Court by filing a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court held that the period under Article 137 in the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'Limitation Act') was applicable to the case. In that view, the High Court upheld the order passed by the Munsif Court condoning the delay for making the application. The High Court also held that the respondent was entitled to get the order of pre-emption on the basis of purchase in 1966 in view of the amendment of 1981. In the result, the High Court set aside the order of the Addl. District Judge and remitted the case to the first appellate Court (District Judge) to decide on merits. Hence, this appeal.
(2.)CIVIL APPEAL NO. 444 OF 2000.
The appellant made an application to enforce right of pre-emption under Section 8 of the Act as a contiguous land owner in the Munsif Court stating that he came to know about the sale deed of the land in question on 18-2-1989. She immediately rushed to the office of the Sub-Registrar and on search came to know of the existence of the sale deed dated 27-5-1983. The application under Section 8 was filed within time from the date of knowledge; an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act also was filed for condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 8 of the Act; the Munsif Court dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; consequently rejected the application filed under Section 8 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order of the Munsif Court, the appellant filed Civil Revision No. 56 of 1991 in the District Court under Section 115-A of the Code of Civil Procedure; the learned District Judge condoned the delay in making application under Section 8 of the Act applying Article 137 of the Limitation Act, set aside the order of the Munsif Court and remitted the case to the Munsif Court to decide the application made under Section 8 of the Act on merits. The respondent moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the aforementioned order of the District Judge. The High Court by the impugned order, set aside the order of the learned Addl. District Judge holding that the claim made by the appellant was barred by limitation following the Division Bench decision of the High Court reported in Serish Maji v. Nishit Kumar Doluj, (1999) (1) CHN 365. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 8 of the Act. Hence, this appeal.
(3.)Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the respondent in C. A. No. 444 of 2000 and Shri Shibshankar Sarkar, learned senior counsel for the appellant in C. A. No. 4688 of 1998 contended that an application made under Section 8 of the Act is a suit; hence Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply in making an application under Section 8 of the Act; Schedule to the Limitation Act contains three divisions, relating to suits, appeals and applications respectively; Article 97 of the Limitation Act, relates to enforcement of right of pre-emption and there is no reference to pre-emption suit anywhere else in the Schedule; under Article 97, the period of limitation prescribed is one year. As per Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation prescribed under any special or local law for any suit, appeal or application is different from the period prescribed in the Schedule of the Limitation Act. Section 3 of the Limitation Act shall apply as if such period is the period prescribed by the Schedule of the Limitation Act and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 shall apply insofar as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. The learned senior counsel submitted that under Section 14-H of the Act, a period of limitation is prescribed for filing an appeal or revision; in the second proviso thereto, it is expressly provided that Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall apply to an appeal under the said section. Under Section 14(O) for filing an appeal, 30 days is the period of limitation prescribed. Expressly, provision is also made in the same section enabling the appellate authority to permit further time for filing an appeal on sufficient cause being shown. Again under Section 19(2), a period of limitation of 30 days is prescribed for filing an appeal and in the proviso attached to the said sub-section, it is clearly and expressly stated that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall apply to an appeal under the said section. Under Section 8 of the Act, for filing an application for pre-emption, various periods of limitation are prescribed but unlike under other provisions aforementioned, no provision is made for applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Hence, by necessary implication the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded to such proceedings. It was also urged that the Act is a complete Code relating to pre-emption proceedings. Even after amendment of certain provisions of the Act, no such provision was made under Section 8 to apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned senior counsel cited few decisions in support of their submissions. They urged that the impugned order in C. A. No. 4688 of 1998 cannot be sustained and the impugned order made in C. A. No. 444 of 2000 is to be upheld.
The respondent made an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (for brevity 'the Act') in the Munsif Court claiming right of pre-emption on the basis of vicinage being the owner of adjoining plots of land purchased on 20-7-1966 and 1-6-1981. According to her, the appellant tried to take forcible possession of the plot No. 1368 adjoining to the east of his land. It is her case that she came to know on 18-9-1985 that the appellant had purchased the said plot No. 1368 on 17-8-1979, which is adjoining the respondent's plot No. 1366. The appellant contested the case denying the material incidents and inter alia contending that the application made under Section 8 of the Act was barred by limitation. The Munsif Court condoned the delay on the ground that the respondent had no knowledge of the sale till the date of application and that there was sufficient cause for not making the application within time but dismissed the application on merits finding that on the date of transfer, the respondent was not possessing the longest common boundary. The appeal filed by the respondent against the said order of the Munsif Court was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. In other words, on merits, the learned Addl. District Judge concurred with the finding recorded by the Munsif Court and reversed its finding on the limitation holding that the application filed by the respondent was barred by time. The respondent approached the High Court by filing a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court held that the period under Article 137 in the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'Limitation Act') was applicable to the case. In that view, the High Court upheld the order passed by the Munsif Court condoning the delay for making the application. The High Court also held that the respondent was entitled to get the order of pre-emption on the basis of purchase in 1966 in view of the amendment of 1981. In the result, the High Court set aside the order of the Addl. District Judge and remitted the case to the first appellate Court (District Judge) to decide on merits. Hence, this appeal.
(2.)CIVIL APPEAL NO. 444 OF 2000.
The appellant made an application to enforce right of pre-emption under Section 8 of the Act as a contiguous land owner in the Munsif Court stating that he came to know about the sale deed of the land in question on 18-2-1989. She immediately rushed to the office of the Sub-Registrar and on search came to know of the existence of the sale deed dated 27-5-1983. The application under Section 8 was filed within time from the date of knowledge; an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act also was filed for condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 8 of the Act; the Munsif Court dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; consequently rejected the application filed under Section 8 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order of the Munsif Court, the appellant filed Civil Revision No. 56 of 1991 in the District Court under Section 115-A of the Code of Civil Procedure; the learned District Judge condoned the delay in making application under Section 8 of the Act applying Article 137 of the Limitation Act, set aside the order of the Munsif Court and remitted the case to the Munsif Court to decide the application made under Section 8 of the Act on merits. The respondent moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the aforementioned order of the District Judge. The High Court by the impugned order, set aside the order of the learned Addl. District Judge holding that the claim made by the appellant was barred by limitation following the Division Bench decision of the High Court reported in Serish Maji v. Nishit Kumar Doluj, (1999) (1) CHN 365. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 8 of the Act. Hence, this appeal.
(3.)Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the respondent in C. A. No. 444 of 2000 and Shri Shibshankar Sarkar, learned senior counsel for the appellant in C. A. No. 4688 of 1998 contended that an application made under Section 8 of the Act is a suit; hence Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply in making an application under Section 8 of the Act; Schedule to the Limitation Act contains three divisions, relating to suits, appeals and applications respectively; Article 97 of the Limitation Act, relates to enforcement of right of pre-emption and there is no reference to pre-emption suit anywhere else in the Schedule; under Article 97, the period of limitation prescribed is one year. As per Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation prescribed under any special or local law for any suit, appeal or application is different from the period prescribed in the Schedule of the Limitation Act. Section 3 of the Limitation Act shall apply as if such period is the period prescribed by the Schedule of the Limitation Act and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 shall apply insofar as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. The learned senior counsel submitted that under Section 14-H of the Act, a period of limitation is prescribed for filing an appeal or revision; in the second proviso thereto, it is expressly provided that Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall apply to an appeal under the said section. Under Section 14(O) for filing an appeal, 30 days is the period of limitation prescribed. Expressly, provision is also made in the same section enabling the appellate authority to permit further time for filing an appeal on sufficient cause being shown. Again under Section 19(2), a period of limitation of 30 days is prescribed for filing an appeal and in the proviso attached to the said sub-section, it is clearly and expressly stated that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall apply to an appeal under the said section. Under Section 8 of the Act, for filing an application for pre-emption, various periods of limitation are prescribed but unlike under other provisions aforementioned, no provision is made for applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Hence, by necessary implication the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded to such proceedings. It was also urged that the Act is a complete Code relating to pre-emption proceedings. Even after amendment of certain provisions of the Act, no such provision was made under Section 8 to apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned senior counsel cited few decisions in support of their submissions. They urged that the impugned order in C. A. No. 4688 of 1998 cannot be sustained and the impugned order made in C. A. No. 444 of 2000 is to be upheld.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.