Karey (Since Deceased) Thru His Lrs. Bal Kishan And ORS. v. Sukhi Ram And ORS

RSA No.4512 of 2016 (O&M) {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4512 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision:03.04.2019 Karey (since deceased) through LRs and others ... Appellants Vs.

Sukhi Ram and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. R.S.Budhwar, Advocate for the appellants.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) C.M.No.11739-C of 2016 For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 133 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

C.M. stands allowed.

RSA No.4512 of 2016 (O&M) The only argument raised by Mr.R.S.Budhwar, learned counsel representing the appellant-defendants is with regard to maintainability of the suit for redemption that Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction in view of the provision of Section 4 of Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913.

I am afraid the aforementioned argument is not sustainable as provisions of the aforementioned Act do not contain non-obstante clause SAVITA KADIAN 2019.04.05 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

RSA No.4512 of 2016 (O&M) {2} barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. This view of mine has already been rendered by this Court in RSA No.1911 of 2017 titled as Ram Saroop (deceased) through LRs and another vs. Badami and others, decided on 13.11.2018.

No ground is made out for interference.

Resultantly, the regular second appeal is dismissed. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE April 03, 2019 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No SAVITA KADIAN 2019.04.05 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh