Research › Browse › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

1953 DIGILAW 35 (HP)

Ramdatt v. Paras Ram

1953-08-03

CHOWDHRY

body1953
ORDER :- This is a plaintiffs application in revision against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Mahasu and Sirmur dated 21-4-1952 whereby the decision of the trial Court dismissing the suit was upheld. 2. Certain land was sold by the defendant-respondent Kapuro to the defendant-respondent Paras Ram. Thereupon the present suit was filed by Jwala Ram, Ram Datt and Dharam Dass as collaterals of the vendor for two reliefs in the alternative, one a declaration that the alienation would not be binding on the reversionary rights of the plaintiffs after the death of the vendor and the other pre-emption of the sale. The suit was dismissed in regard to both the reliefs by the trial Court, and that decree, as just stated, was maintained on appeal by the District Judge. 3. This revision is not concerned with the alternative relief based on pre-emption because the petitioner has failed to make good the necessary court-fee. The only point for consideration with regard to the other relief is whether the plaintiffs and the vendor were descendants from a common ancestor. It is, however, not necessary to go into the merits of the revision (although the learned counsel for the petitioner did argue on merits also) for it is liable to dismissal on another ground, as follows. 4. The present revision was filed on 1-9-1952. It purports to be on behalf of the plaintiff Jwala Ram only through Sri K.C. Pandit Advocate. The learned advocate, however, had no power on behalf of Jwala Ram but only on behalf of the plaintiff Ram Datt. Accordingly, he put in an application to this Court on 22-4-1953 praying that the revision be treated as one on behalf of Ram Datt, and that Jwala Ram be made a respondent and notified. That application was argued on merits today by Sri K.C. Pandit. It may, however, be stated that on the same date that the aforesaid application was preferred, i.e., on 22-4-1953, he was ordered to have all the necessary parties notified. No step was, however, taken to get any notice issued to Jwala Ram. On this ground alone this revision would be liable to rejection. Another point worthy of note is that one of the plaintiffs, Bali Ram, has not been impleaded in the present revision. The matter does not, however, rest there. 5. No step was, however, taken to get any notice issued to Jwala Ram. On this ground alone this revision would be liable to rejection. Another point worthy of note is that one of the plaintiffs, Bali Ram, has not been impleaded in the present revision. The matter does not, however, rest there. 5. From what has been stated above it is clear that the present revision will really be deemed to have been filed on 22-4-1953 by the plaintiff Ram Datt. In other words, it was filed exactly a year after the dismissal of the appeal by the learned District Judge. The Learned counsel for the petitioner Ram Datt argued on the basis of - Sukhdeo v. Yashodabai, AIR 1932 Nag 20 (A) that under O. 1, R. 10, Civil P.C., the name of Ram Datt can be substituted for that of Jwala Ram as a petitioner at any stage. That case has, however, no application since the application under O. 1, R. 10 was filed within limitation. It was laid down by this Court as long ago as 3-10-1950 in - Beg Ram v. Charan Das, AIR 1951 Him. P. 16 (B), that the ninety-day rule of limitation applicable in the case of an appeal would also be adopted in future in the case of a revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that this ruling is in conflict with the provisions of para. 35, Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, 1948, and therefore it does not lay down good law. 6. The argument of the learned counsel was this. Proviso (i) to sub-para. (1) of para. 35 of the said Order prescribes a period of 90 days for filing revision petitions covered by Cl. (b) of the said sub-paragraph. These are revision petitions where an important question of law or custom is involved which requires further consideration. That admittedly is not the nature of the present revision petition, which falls under Cl. (a) of the said paragraph. No period of limitation has been prescribed for revision petitions like the present filed under Cl. (a) of the sub-paragraph, and it was urged by the learned counsel that the necessary inference is that there was to be no period of limitation for the institution of such revisions. I do not agree with this interpretation of the relevant provisions of para. 35, Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, 1948. 7. (a) of the sub-paragraph, and it was urged by the learned counsel that the necessary inference is that there was to be no period of limitation for the institution of such revisions. I do not agree with this interpretation of the relevant provisions of para. 35, Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, 1948. 7. By the mere fact of a specific period of limitation having been laid down in respect of revision petitions covered by Cl. (b) it cannot be said positively that there was to be no limitation whatsoever in respect of revision petitions filed under Cl. (a). All that can be said is that whereas a particular period of limitation was laid down in respect of revision petitions covered by Cl. (b), para. 35 was silent as regards limitation for revision petitions falling under Cl. (a). That being so, there was nothing to prevent this Court from laying down the said rule of limitation for revision petitions as a matter of practice to be followed in this Court, as has been done by a number of High Courts. The practice has no doubt been laid down with a view to obviate preferment of revisions with delay. The decision of this Court is, therefore, not in conflict with the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, and therefore the contention that it does not contain good law has no force. Even if the said decision of this Court be disregarded, the present revision would still be liable to dismissal on the ground of its having been filed with inordinate delay for, as adverted to above, it will be deemed to have been filed on behalf of Ram Datt a year after the passing of the judgment against which the present revision has been filed. 8. The revision is accordingly dismissed as time-barred, or, in any case, as having been filed with too much delay. The plaintiff-petitioner Ram Datt will pay the costs of the defendant-respondent Paras Ram, which costs will include the Rs. 25/- ordered on 22-4-1953 but admittedly not yet paid by the petitioner to the respondent. Revision dismissed.