Jheky] lnL;&;g fuxjkuh jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955 ¼ftls rRipkr~ ^vf/kfu;e* dgk tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 230 ds vUrxZr vfrfjDr ftyk dysDVj ¼izkklu½] Jhxaxkuxj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 17-2-2003 ds fo:) izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 2- la{ksi esa izdj.k ds rF; bl izdkj gS fd oknh lkgcjke us ,d nkok ^vf/kfu;e* dh /kkjk 53 ds vUrxZr mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] Jhxaxkuxj ds le{k izfroknh ckck gfjnkl th o vU; ds fo:) izLrqr fd;kA vizkFkhZx.k uksfVl rkehy gksus ds ipkr~ Hkh mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ds le{k mifLFkr ugha gq,A bl dkj.k ls mi[k.M vf/kdkjh us vknsk fnukad 18-12-2000 }kjk nkok Lohdkj dj izkjfEHkd fMØh ikfjr dj nh ,oa fnukad 4-1-2001 dks vfUre fMØh ikfjr dj nhA fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnukad 18-12-2000 ,oa 4-1-2000 ,oa 4-1-2001 ls O;fFkr gksdj izfroknh us ,d izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vknsk 9 fu;e 13 lhihlh mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] Jhxaxkuxj ds U;k;ky; esa fnukad 27-1-2001 dks isk dj ,d i{kh; fMØh fnukad 18-12-2000 ,oa vfUre fMØh fnukad 4-1-2001 dks fujLr djus dk fuosnu fd;kA izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk yk/kwjke us ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5 dk izkFkZuk i= e; kiFk i= isk dj nsjh dks {kek djus dk Hkh fuosnu fd;kA fnukad 22-2-2001 dks lkgcjke us yk/kwjke }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= dk tokc isk dj izkFkZuk i= dks [kkfjt djus dk fuosnu fd;kA izkFkZuk i= ds yfEcr jgrs lkgcjke us ,d izkFkZuk i= ftyk dysDVj] Jhxaxkuxj ds ;gka mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] Jhxaxkuxj ds ;gka yfEcr izdj.k dks vU;= eqUrfdy djus dh izkFkZuk dhA ftyk dysDVj] Jh xaxkuxj us vius vknsk fnukad 25-6-2001 }kjk izdj.k vfrfjDr ftyk dysDVj ¼izkklu½] Jhxaxkuxj dks eqUrfdy fd;kA lkgcjke us ^vf/kfu;e* dh /kkjk 233 ds rgr ,d eqUrfdyh izkFkZuk i= jktLo e.My esa isk dj vfrfjDr ftyk dysDVj] Jhxaxkuxj ds le{k py jgs izdj.k la- 7@2001 ^yk/kqjke cuke lkgcjke* dks vU;= U;k;ky; esa gLrkarfjr djus ds fy, izkFkZuk dhA ;g eqUrfdyh izkFkZuk i= 1@02@Vh,@xaxkuxj ntZ jftLVj fd;k x;kA jktLo e.My dh ,dyihB us vius vknsk fnukad 26-11-2002 }kjk eqUrfdyh izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;k vkSj i{kdkjksa dks funsZk fn;s fd os vfrfjDr ftyk dysDVj ¼izkklu½] xaxkuxj ds ;gka vknsk 26-11-2002 dks ysdj mifLFkfr gksos] tks bl izdj.k dk kh?kz fuLrkj.k djsaxsA izdj.k iqu% izkIr gksus ij vfrfjDr ftyk dysDVj ¼izkklu½] Jhxaxkuxj us muds fu.kZ; fnukad 17-2-2003 ds }kjk yk/kwjke dk izkFkZuk i= vUarxZr vknsk 9 fu;e 13 lhihlh dk Lohdkj fd;k rFkk mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] Jhxaxkuxj }kjk nkok la- 396@2000 esa fnukad 18-12-2000 dks ikfjr vknsk o izkjfEHkd fMØh fnukad 18-12-2000 ,oa bl fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij tkjh vfUre fMØh fnukad 4-1-2001 dks fujLr dj fn;s ,oa ;g vknsk fn;s fd mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] Jhxaxkuxj mHk; i{kdkjku dks lquokbZ ,oa lk{; izLrqr djus dk leqfpr volj nsrs gq, ewy nkok dk iqu% fuLrkj.k fu;ekuqlkj djsaA vfrfjDr ftyk dysDVj ¼izkklu½ Jhxaxkuxj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 17-12-2003 ls O;fFkr gksdj oknh@izkFkhZ lkgcjke us ;g fuxjkuh jktLo e.my esa isk dh gSA 3- mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dks lqukA 4- izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fo}ku vf/koDrk us viuh cgl esa crk;k fd vizkFkhZ dk ;g dFku fd mls mldh Hkwfe ij Qly&_.k ysuk Fkk vkSj bl dkj.k mlus dkxtkr dh udys ysus ds fy, iVokjh gYdk ls fnukad 16-1-2001 dks lEidZ fd;k rc iVokjh gYdk us izkFkhZ dks ,d i{kh; fMØh ,oa mlds vk/kkj ij ,d i{kh; :i ls djok;s x;s bUrdky dh tkudkjh gqbZ] ekuus ;ksX; ugha gksdj vlR; gSA vizkFkhZ la- 1 us iVokjh dk kiFk i= layXu ugha fd;k gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us nsjh dks {kE; fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa dksbZ fu"d"kZ ugha fn;k gSA vizkFkhZ dks izkjEHk ls gh ;g tkudkjh Fkh] fd oknh@izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZ ds fo:) foHkktu dk okn izLrqr dj j[kk gSA vizkFkhZ pkgrk] rks iz;kl djds vnkyr ds okn uEcj o vxyh rkjh[k isfk;ka ekywe dj ldrk Fkk] ijUrq vizkFkhZ us ,slk ugha fd;k D;ksafd vizkFkhZ okn dks yEck djuk pkgrk FkkA mudh ;g Hkh cgl gS fd ;fn cgl ds fy, ;g Hkh eku fy;k tk;s fd izkFkhZ dh rkehy esa dksbZ vfu;ferrk Fkh] rks ml vk/kkj ij Hkh ,di{kh; fMØh fujLr ugha dh tk ldrh FkhA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks QSlyk djus dk vf/kdkj Hkh ugha FkkA 5- blds fo:) izfroknh@vizkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh cgl gS fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks vknsk 9 fu;e 13 lhihlh ds izkFkZuk i= dks fuLrkfjr djus dk iw.kZ vf/kdkj Fkk] D;ksafd ftyk dysDVj us vius vknsk fnukad 25-6-2001 }kjk vfrfjDr ftyk dysDVj dks izdj.k fuLrkj.k djus ds fy, Hkstk] tks muds foosdkf/kdkj esa vkrk gSA vknsk 5 fu;e 5 ls 19 lhihlh ds mica/kksa dh ikyuk ugha dh xbZA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; iw.kZ :i ls mudh vf/kdkfjrk ds vUrxZr gSA vr% v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; fof/kiw.kZ gSA 6- eSaus mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dh cgl ij euu fd;k o v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa dh i=kofy;ksa dk voyksdu fd;k ,oa jktLFkku e.My dh ,dyihB }kjk eqUrfdyh izkFkZuk i= esa ikfjr vknsk fnukad 26-11-2002 dk v/;;u fd;kA 7- i=koyh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd ftyk dysDVj] Jhxaxkuxj }kjk eqUrfdyh izkFkZuk i= ij vknsk fnukad 25-6-2001 ls O;fFkr gksdj jktLo e.My esa pkjktksbZ dhA jktLo e.My us vius vknsk fnukad 26-11-2002 }kjk vfrfjDr ftyk dysDVj ¼izkklu½ Jhxaxkuxj dks izdj.k varfjr fd;k x;k mls mfpr ekukA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us xksiky kqxj b.MLVªht cuke bUdeVSDl vkQhlj ¼1½] esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& ``We think that the learned Judicial Commissioner was clearly in error in holding that no manifest injustice resulted from the order of the respondent conveyed in his letter dated March 24, 1955. By that order the respondent virtually refused to carry out the directions which a superior tribunal had given to him in exercise of its appellate powers in respect of an order of assessment made by him. Such refusal is in effect a denial of justice, and is furthermore destructive of one of the basic principles in the administration of justice based as it is in this country on a hierarchy of Courts. If a subordinate tribunal refuses to carry out directions given to it by a superior tribunal in the exercise of its appellate powers, the result will be chaos in the administration of justice and we have indeed found it very difficult to appreciate the process of reasoning by which the learned Judicial Commissioner while roundly condemning the responded for refusing to carry out the directions of the superior tribunal, yet held that no manifest injustice resulted from such refusal. 8- izkFkhZ us jktLo e.My }kjk eqUrfdyh izkFkZuk i= esa ikfjr vknsk fnukad 26-11-2002 ds fo:) dksbZ pkjktksbZ ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; esa ugha dh] bl dkj.k esjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa vfrfjDr ftyk dysDVj ¼izkklu½ Jhxaxkuxj dks izuxr izdj.k fuLrkfjr djus dk {ks=kf/kdkj FkkA tgka rd izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd vafre fMØh fnukad 4-1-2001 ikfjr dh tk pqdh gS] bl dkj.k vizkFkhZx.k }kjk izkjfEHkd fMØh fnukad 18-12-2000 ds fo:) vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gS] mudk ;g rdZ Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gSA ekuuh; mPPkre U;k;ky; ds lhryizlkn o vU; cuke fdkksjhyky ¼2½] esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& ``There can in our opinion be non doubt that if in appeal the preliminary decree is reversed, the final decree must fall to the ground for there is no preliminary decree thereafter in support of it. It is not necessary in such a case for the defendant to go the Court passing the final decree and ask it to set aside the final decree. Even if the defendant does not make an application to the Court for setting aside the final decree within three years because the preliminary decree has been reversed, the decree-holder cannot get the right to execute the final decree which has not preliminary decree in support of it. Even if the defendant does not make an application to the Court for setting aside the final decree within three years because the preliminary decree has been reversed, the decree-holder cannot get the right to execute the final decree which has not preliminary decree in support of it. If an execution petition is made on such a final decree even though more than three years after the decree in appeal has been reversed, the defendant has simply to ask the Court where the execution petition is made to refuse to execute the decree on the ground that the preliminary decree in support of it has been set aside. It seems to us that in such a case it is the duty of the executing Court to take note of the fact that the preliminary decree in support of the final decree has been reversed and it should refuse to execute the final decree even though the fact is brought to its notice more than three years after the decree in appeal reversing the preliminary decree. In such a case in our opinion no question of limitation arises. In such a case in our opinion no question of limitation arises. vknsk 5 fu;e 9 ls 19 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk esa okn ds lEeu izfroknh ij rkehy djok;s tkus dk mica/k gS] tgka rd laHko gks izfroknh ij vlkyru rkehy djok;k tkuk pkfg;sA ;fn fdlh dkj.k ls izfroknh Lo;a ekStwn ugha feys rks mlds ifjokj ds fdlh ckfyx lnL; ij Hkh rkehy djokbZ tk ldrh gSA izfroknh o mlds ifjokj ds lnL; lEeu ysus ls bUdkj djsa] rks izfroknh ds edku ij pLikuxh ls Hkh rkehy djokbZ tk ldrh gSA izuxr ekeys esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd yk/kwjke ds lEeu ds ihNs bl ckr dk dksbZ vadu ugha gS] fd mlus lEeu ysus ls euk fd;k ,oa lEeu pLik djus ls iwoZ U;k;ky; dh Lohd`fr yh xbZA lEeu dks ns[kus ls Li"V gS fd ftl O;fDr us edku gh igpku djokbZ ml O;fDr dk irk ugha fn;k x;k gS] vkSj bl ckr dk Hkh mYys[k ugha gS fd okn i= dh izfr Hkh pLik dh xbZA bl dkj.k lEeu dk pLik fd;k tkuk oS/k ugha gSA vknsk 5 fu;e 2 lhihlh vknskkRed gSA vknsk 9 fu;e 6 lhihlh ds vuqlkj ;fn ;g lkfcr gks tkrk gS] fd lEeu dh rkehy lE;d :i ls dh xbZ gS] rks U;k;ky; vknsk dj ldsxk fd ,d i{kh; lquokbZ dh tkosA 9- mijksDr ls esjh jk; ds vuqlkj izfroknh ij lEeu dh rkehy lE;d :i ls ugha dh xbZ Fkh] rFkk vizkFkhZ la- 1 ds U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr ugha gksus ds i;kZIr dkj.k FksA vizkFkhZ la- 1 }kjk izLrqr lqkhy dqekj lcjoky cuke xqjihrflag ,.M vnlZ ¼3½] esa izfrikfnr fl)kar orZeku izdj.k ds rF;ksa ij iw.kZ :i ls ykxw gksrh gSA yVwj cuke }kjdkyky ,.M vuknj ¼4½] esa jktLo e.My dh [k.MihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& ``Code of Civil Procedure, Order 5, Rule 17-Appeal against order of R.A.A.-Service of the summons of the appellant has been made by affixing the summons without any order of the Court and copy of appeal not enclosed-R.A.A. has considered the service proper and passed ex-parte decree which is not according to the provisions of law-Order and decree passed by R.A.A., set aside and case remanded to be decided on merits after hearing both the parties. ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB us eSllZ pUnzk ,.M vnlZ cke LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku ,.M vnlZ ¼5½] esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& ``(i) Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order 5 Rule 17-Order 9 Rule 13-Summons : Improper service : If process server did not comply with provisions of Order 5 Rule 17, CPC ex parte decree may be set aside by 1st appellate Court. 10- vfHkys[k ls Li"V gS fd vizkFkhZ us vknsk 9 fu;e 13 lhihlh ds izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5 dk izkFkZuk i= fnukad 30-1-2001 dks isk fd;kA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us vius foosd dk mi;ksx dj vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr foyEc {kek ds vkosnu dks Lohdkj fd;k gS ftlesa ,slh dksbZ izrhr ugha gksrh fd foyEc {kek djus dk vknsk iw.kZ :i ls vFkok U;kf;d fl)kUrksa ds foijhr gSA ,u- ckykd`".ku cuke ,e d`".kkewfrZ ¼6½] esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& ``It is axoimatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior Court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is different matter when the first Court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior Court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior Court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower Court. 10. The reason for such a different stance is thus : The Primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Time limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situation is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. 10. The reason for such a different stance is thus : The Primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Time limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situation is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. ¼js[kkafdr cy nsus ds fy, fd;k x;k gS½ 11- v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us ,di{kh; fMØh dks vikLr djus dk izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj dj fy;k mlesa dksbZ vf/kdkfjrk laca/kh =qfV ekywe ugha gksrhA 12- ifj.kker% izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr fuxjkuh cyghu o lkjghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr dh tkrh gS ,oa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vknsk fnukad 17-2-2003 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA lkFk gh nksuksa i{kksa dks ikcan fd;k tkrk gS fd os mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] Jhxaxkuxj ds U;k;ky; esa vfrfjDr ftyk dysDVj ¼izkklu½ Jhxaxkuxj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 17-2-2003 ds vuqlkj ewy okn esa vfxze dk;Zokgh gsrq fnukad 13-9-2004 dks mifLFkr jgsaxs] mUgsa vyx ls lwpuk ugha nh tkosxhA mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] Jhxaxkuxj ds U;k;ky; }kjk vU;kdsbZ lEeu uksfVl ugha fn;s tkosaA mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] Jhxaxkuxj dks pkfg;s fd oks vizkFkhZ la- 2 tks e.My esa mifLFkr ugha vk;k] ftls fof/kor :i ls lwpuk nh tkosaA 13- fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA