AMAR NATH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Special Leave Petition a strong reliance is placed on a decision of a three-Judge bench of this court by learned counsel for the petitioner in Siri Ram v. State of Haryana. We are told that therein the view taken is that even though the claimant restricted his claim before the trial court, he can request the court of appeal to increase the claim in the appeal by filing deficit court fee. We are informed that a contrary view has been taken by this court in M. Govinda Raju v. Special Land Additional Land Acquisition Officer and that view is after the view of the three-Judge bench aforesaid. In our view, therefore, it will be proper to place this Special Leave Petition for appropriate orders before a bench of three learned Judges. Office to obtain appropriate orders from the Hon'ble the chief justice of India in this connection. court Masters [connected CASE] judges : A. M. AHMADI, C. J. AND S. P. BHARUCHA AND K. S. paripoornan, JJ. APPELLANT : SIRI RAM respondent : STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER appeal TYPE : Civil appeal YEAR : 1989 judgement DATE : 22/03/1995 ORDER 1. Special leave granted. 2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned judgment dated 19-5-1988 and the subsequent order dated 1/11/1988 passed in Regular First Appeal No. 318 of 1985 and Civil Miscellaneous No. 938 of 1988 respectively of the High court of punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. So far as the main judgment is concerned Mr. Bhagat states that he does not press his appeal against that judgment. Therefore, the appeal insofar as the main judgment of 19-5-1988 is concerned, will stand disposed of with noorder as to costs as not pressed. Mr. Bhagat is, however, right when he contends that his case falls within the ratio of this court's decision in scheduled Caste Cooperative Land Owning Society Ltd. v. Union of India which a came to be affirmed and approved by the Constitution bench by its order in buta Singh v. Union of India. We, therefore, set aside the order passed in civil Miscellaneous No. 938 of 1988 dated 1/11/1988 and direct that the high court should dispose of the case by permitting the appellant to pay the deficit court fee within one month from today in accordance with the observations made by this court in the aforesaid decision. The appeal will, therefore, stand allowed insofar as it relates to the order passed in Civil miscellaneous No. 938 of 1988 dated 1/11/1988 with no order as to costs.