M/S Jai Bajrang Rice Mills Dhanauri District Jind Thru Lrs Of Suresh Kumar (Prop.) And ORS v. Haryana Agro Industries Corp. Thru Its Managing Director Panchkula And ORS

 
       


! "#

$%& '&()*)+, -'
&.-/$-01



 



  
 
 
  
 

  


 
  !

  " 
# $ 
!


%  
&


  

  

  '
 (  
 

   ", 2 3" 454 

 ) 
 
 '
!*




   
 
+*'
!*


   ,,,, 54 1 !-$6#, - .



 

/0


!

1 
  & 
!'
-223

 '
4
!4




*

 
1  
 

/5


! .
1 

 


 
  
 



 







.
 
 
  

*

 


  
 1  
7



 
1+

 '

 1 




+ 
 
+
 

+ 
 63869-/
!

*


+ '



 

1  
 


/5


!

::69-5
.

+




 



+


  / 


 




 
1

 
+
;

  


/- :


!'





 $


 1 

 + 
+








 
 

1  
+ 
+

 




 1 
 

+

  
  * 

 '
 


* 
  

 $


+ 
+  




 
%

 
  


! 
   




(

 


 




*

 


1  
+ 


1

 


 


  
 

 

 
 
1

 

* 


*1
  

+ 
 


+ 
+ 
 


 
 

  


*

 :

# 



 


 
 
 

  . 


 





 1 

 * 


-6569-/

. 


* 
*1
  
 1

 $

+ 
+
 *




 
%

1  


 *'

 


 



1  
 


/5


!



1
  

 


 


  '


 

 
1 



+



1


1



 

+
  

 
%
45"$%7$83$67$+'"&97-$:$+'%7&-*1!;#< 4;1



& 
)
We, however, feel disinclined to go into the merits of the controversy, as we are of the opinion that the Division Bench ought to have confined its decision only to the question dealt with by the learned Single Judge viz. the question of limitation. The Division Bench has dealt with the issue of limitation in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the impugned judgment

  and from a reading thereof, we observe that Application Nos. 1106-1108/2000 filed by the assignees in which notice had been issued on 19.4.1999 for 10.6.1999 by the Master were dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 3.7.2000 without notice to the applicants i.e. the assignees. In this situation, the Division Bench was justified in holding that the order of the learned Single Judge was not sustainable. The learned counsel for the appellant, has, however, urged that no particulars had been spelt out in the application justifying the condonation of a delay of 971 days. We are of the opinion, however, that the applicants have explained the delay and we accordingly endorse the observations of the Division Bench on this aspect.

As noted above, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the applications by order dated 3.7.2000 wholly on the ground of limitation. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench has not only condoned the delay but taken a decision on merits as well. We are of the opinion that the second exercise was not justified as the only issue before the Division Bench was the question of limitation. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench to the extent that it goes on to the merits of the controversy but maintain it in so far that it deals with the question of limitation. Ipso facto the matters are restored to a re-hearing on merits."

9.

The application under Section 34 of the Act was dismissed on the ground of limitation, thereafter the court had no occasion to take up the matter on merits.

10.

Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned to decide the objection application under Section 34 of the Act afresh in accordance with law.

< 11.

The appeal is disposed of.

54      -'
&.-/$-01

( -
<
 (


  ) =

> 6
<  1 ) =

>