High Court of Punjab and HaryanaRSA/5528/2017dismissed

Jagan And ORS v. Khajan Singh And ORS

2019-04-02Mr. Justice Amit Rawal2 pages

C.M.No.3548-C of 2019 in/and {1} RSA No.5528 of 2017 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.3548-C of 2019 in/and RSA No.5528 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision:02.04.2019 Jagan and others ... Appellants Vs.

Khajan Singh (deceased) through LRs and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr.Rajender Kumar, Advocate for Mr. M.S.Tewatia, Advocate for the appellants.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) C.M.No.3548-C of 2019 For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 60 days in filing the restoration application is condoned.

C.M. stands allowed.

C.M.No.3551-C of 2019 For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, order dated 06.12.2018 vide which the appeal was dismissed in default, is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number.

C.M. stands allowed.

SAVITA KADIAN 2019.04.05 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

C.M.No.3548-C of 2019 in/and {2} RSA No.5528 of 2017 (O&M) RSA No.5528 of 2017 (O&M) The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that suit for redemption of mortgage of 1988 was time barred. A specific query was raised by this Court as to whether there is any time line for fixing the mortgage, the answer was ' No'.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Ram (D) through LRs Vs. Sheo Ram and others 2014 AIR SC 3447, there is no limitation prescribed to file the suit for redemption.

The appeal is also accompanied by the applications seeking condonation of delay of 244 days in re-filing as well as 46 days in filing the appeal. The explanation given in the applications is bereft of the reasoning. The findings of fact and law cannot be said to be suffering from illegality and perversity. No ground is made out for interference. Resultantly, the regular second appeal is dismissed on merits as well as on limitation. Consequently, the application for deleting the name of respondent no.13 has been rendered infructuous. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE April 02, 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