Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Ludhiana Improvement Trust vs Ujjagar Singh And Others on 22 February, 2012
Author: L.N. Mittal
Bench: L.N. Mittal
Civil Revision No.7684 of 2011 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.7684 of 2011
Date of Decision: 22.2.2012
The Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana
...Petitioner
Versus
Ujjagar Singh and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL
Present: Mr. Salil Sagar, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. Samarth Sagar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Dr.Surya Parkash, Advocate for the respondents.
L.N. MITTAL, J.(ORAL)
This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 15.11.2011 Annexure P-8 passed by Executing Court i.e. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana.
This case has a chequered history. Land of the petitioner was auctioned in execution of proceedings for recovery of compensation amount. Petitioner filed Objections against auction sale of the land. The said Objections were dismissed in default by the Executing Court. Appeal and revision were dismissed by first Appellate Court and by this Court. However, Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 9.6.2010 Annexure P-3 allowed Civil Appeal No.2395 of 2008 preferred by the petitioner herein subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.5 (auction purchaser) within three weeks as condition precedent without which the appellant i.e. petitioner herein would not be allowed to prosecute its Objections.
Petitioner moved application Annexure P-5 in the Executing Civil Revision No.7684 of 2011 -2- Court on 16.7.2010 alleging that pursuant to order Annexure P-3 of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the petitioner got prepared pay order for Rs.50,000/- cost amount on 24.6.2010 and sent the same to respondent No.5 - M/s Jaggan Singh and Company through Jagjit Singh, 203, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana by registered post but the same was received undelivered. Thereafter, petitioner's officials tried to deliver the said pay order to respondent No.5 by going to property No.203 in all the blocks of Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana but respondent No.5 could not be traced and therefore, pay order could not be delivered. Civil Courts were closed since 16.6.2010 till 15.7.2010. Accordingly petitioner moved application Annexure P-5 on 16.7.2010 along with pay order for Rs.50,000/- dated 24.6.2010 for delivering the same to respondent No.5.
Respondent No.5 opposed the application by filing reply Annexure P-6 alleging that its address is 203-C, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana and the pay order was sent at incomplete address i.e. 203, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana.
Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Executing Court vide impugned order Annexure P-8 dismissed the application of the petitioner herein and therefore, the instant revision petition has been filed to challenge the said order.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Counsel for the parties reiterated their respective contentions noticed in their application Annexure P-5 and reply Annexure P-6.
Counsel for the respondents also contended that the petitioner should have moved Hon'ble the Supreme Court for extension of time for payment of the cost amount pursuant to order Annexure P-3 as Executing Court or this Court cannot extend the time.
Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on Full Bench judgment of this Court in AIR 1981 Punjab & Haryana 269 Anand Parkash Vs. Bharat Bhushan Rai and another.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions. There has been some lapse on the part of the petitioner in sending the pay order at wrong address of respondent No.5 which is Civil Revision No.7684 of 2011 -3- apparent but the said lapse appears to be bonafide. Time for payment of cost amount of Rs.50,000/- as per order dated 9.6.2010 Annexure P-3 of Hon'ble the Supreme Court was three weeks i.e. upto 30.6.2010. The petitioner got prepared pay order well within time on 24.6.2010 and also dispatched it by registered post to respondent No.5 at the address which was there in the memo of parties of the petition before Hon'ble the Supreme Court as also in this Court in the earlier revision petition. However, the said address was not correct address of respondent No.5 and therefore, the pay order could not be delivered to respondent No.5. The petitioner also allegedly tried to deliver the pay order by hand to respondent No.5 at property No.203 in all blocks of Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar but could not succeed. The petitioner also moved application Annexure P-5 on opening day of the Executing Court after summer vacations.
Keeping in view the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is granted another opportunity to pay the cost amount of Rs.50,000/- as imposed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order Annexure P-3 with some additional costs because of lapse, although bonafide, committed by the petitioner in payment of the cost amount. The question of extension of time as sought for payment of cost amount does not arise because the petitioner made efforts to pay the cost amount within the time stipulated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Consequently judgment in the case of Anand Parkash (supra) is not attracted to the facts of the instant case.
For the reasons aforesaid, instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-8 passed by Executing Court is set aside. Application Annexure P-5 moved by the petitioner in the Executing Court is allowed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs.50,000/- as imposed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and also another amount of Rs.50,000/- as additional cost to respondent No.5 in the Executing Court within one month from today. The petitioner shall be entitled to take back its pay order of Rs.50,000/- dated 24.6.2010 from the Executing Court. Parties are directed to appear in the Executing Court on 12.3.2012. Thereafter, the Executing Court shall dispose of the Objections in accordance with law as Civil Revision No.7684 of 2011 -4- expeditiously as possible.
(L.N. MITTAL ) 22.2.2012 JUDGE Meenu