NARENDRA NATH Vs. SHRI CHANDRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court Under Article 133 of the Constitution. In the application all the sub -clauses of Clause (1), namely (a), (b) and (c) have been mentioned; but learned Counsel for the Applicant has confined his claim to sub CL (b). After obtaining findings in regard to valuation of the property from the court below and after hearing learned Counsel at some length we have arrived at the conclusion that the certificate prayed for should be granted.

(2.) THE Plaintiff, who has filed this application, instituted, in 1964, Suit No. 14 of 1964 in the court of the Civil kludge, Etawah for redemption of a mortgage executed by his predecessor -in -interest in favour of the predecessor -in -interest of the Defendants, who are the opposite parties in this petition. The suit was contested but the trial court decreed the suit. An appeal to the District Judge having failed a Second Appeal was filed in this Court, which was referred for decision by a Division Bench. By its judgment dated the 12th of July, 1968, the Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the court below and dismissed the suit. Thereafter the present application Under Article 133 of the Constitution was filed on 1 -8 -1968. On the 27th of February, 1969, after hearing learned Counsel in support of the application, we passed an order directing the court below to record a finding on the following issues - -

(3.) THE next question which requires to be considered is whether the present case will fall under Sub -clause (a) of Clause (1), or Sub -clause (b) of Clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kunju Kesavan v. M.M. Philip : AIR 1964 SC 164 in support of the proposition that in the present case Sub -clause (b) should be applied and not Sub -clause (a). It was observed in the aforesaid decision as follows: