Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 762 (PNJ)

Krishna Rani v. Ram Kishan

2002-08-06

JASBIR SINGH

body2002
Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. This application has been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer that order passed by Permanent Lok Adalat of this Court on 6.5.2002, be ignored and revision petition be ordered to be heard on merits. 2. Records of the case indicate that one time, this matter was referred to Permanent Lok Adalat for adjudication and after hearing both the parties, it was proposed by the Lok Adalat that revision petition be dismissed. Petitioner, aggrieved by that order, has moved this application and has prayed that Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to pass such an order and to support his contentions he has relied upon judgment of this Court in FAO No. 798 of 1999 decided by a Division Bench titled as Kamal Mehta v. General Manager, Rajasthan Roadways Transport Corporation and another, decided 7.11.2001. 3. Contention raised by counsel for the petitioner seems to be justified. Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with a similar matter, came to a conclusion that the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to pass an order on merits. Relevant portion of that judgment reads as under:- "It will be clear from the above discussion that the Lok Adalats have been conceptualised as agencies wherein matters can be amicably compromised or settled by mutual agreement. These words have been repeatedly used in the statute and if such an agreement cannot be reached, the Lok Adalat must divest itself of the controversy and must itself refer or advise the parties to approach a Court. It is true that the respondent-Corporation has been left with the liberty to file objections but this procedure is unknown to proceedings under the Act and clearly violates the principle of the finality of an award of a Lok Adalat envisaged under Section 21. This is a clear transgression on the powers of the appellate Court." In view of ratio, of above mentioned judgment, order passed by the Lok Adalat, is ordered to be ignored, With the consent of counsel for both the parties, revision petition is taken up for hearing today. 4. Revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against an order dated 14.9.1998, vide which her application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of plaint has been declined. 5. 4. Revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against an order dated 14.9.1998, vide which her application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of plaint has been declined. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court has dismissed her application merely on the ground that relief, which now she intended to add, is barred by limitation. He stated that on this score alone, her application cannot be declined. 6. As against this, Shri Chaudhary, appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3 has stated that application has rightly been declined, since by praying that amendment, petitioner intended to get a relief which otherwise was barred by limitation and he prayed that revision petition be dismissed. 7. Arguments of counsel for the parities and a reading of paper book reveal that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the respondents with a prayer that they be directed to remove illegal construction from the property in dispute. Suit was filed on 27.8.1992. Upon notice, respondents appeared and filed their respective written statements. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have taken a specific stand in paragraph No.5 of the written statement that they are in possession of the property in dispute, which has been purchased by them from the Municipal Committee-defendant-respondent No.3 and price as fixed, has been deposited with the Municipal Committee vide Receipts dated 25.7.1992. Respondent No.3 in paragraph No.4 of its written statement has categorically stated that defendant-respondent No. 1 has deposited the price of the property in dispute vide Deputy Commissioners order No. 220 dated 3.4.1991. Written statements were filed by the defendants in the month of December, 1993. 8. By moving application for amendment, petitioner-plaintiff intended to challenge the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as mentioned above and that prayer has been declined by the Court below on the ground that the relief claimed is time barred. Opinion arrived at by the Court below seems to be justified, If not earlier, order dated 3.4.1991, passed in favour of respondents No.1 and 2, had come to the notice of petitioner/plaintiff, when written statement was filed by them in the year 1993, but still, he kept mum and never tried to agitate that matter. Application for amendment was filed only in the year 1998. Application for amendment was filed only in the year 1998. Trial Court has rightly concluded that in view of provisions of Limitation Act, application became time barred. Opinion arrived at seems to be justified and this view finds support from a Judgment of Honble Apex Court titled as K. Raheja Constructions Ltd. v. Alliance Ministries and others, A.I.R. 1995 Supreme Court 1768. Paragraph No.4 of that judgment read as under:- "4. It is seen that the permission for alienation is not a condition precedent to file the suit for specific performance. The decree of specific performance will always be subject to the condition to the grant of the permission by the competent authority. The petitioners having expressly admitted that the respondents have refused to abide by the terms of the contract, they should have asked for the relief of specific performance in the original suit itself. Having allowed the period of seven years elapsed from the date of filing of the suit, and the period of limitation being three years under Article 54 of the/Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, any amendment on the ground set out, would defeat the valuable right of limitation accrued to the respondent." 9. In this case also, a valuable right has accrued in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 due to lapse of time. 10. Counsel for petitioner has failed to indicate any legal infirmity in the order passed by Trial Court, which necessitates any interference by this Court while exercising its limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 19.8.2002. Since, nobody has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, Registry is directed to send a copy of the order to them.