KRISHNA CHANDRA Vs. KANEEZ FATIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-revisionists filed a Civil Suit No. 166 of 1961 in the Court of Munsif Havali, Lucknow claiming partition of the house in dispute alleging that they were the owners of 2/3rd share in the said house and the defendants-opposite-parties were owners of the remaining one-third share (therein. A preliminary decree for partition was passed by the trial Court on 1st December, 1964. THE plaintiffs applied on 4th March, 1965 for making a final decree for partition. Consequently, a Commissioner was appointed to determine the valuation of the house in dispute. According to the opinion of the Commissioner the valuation of the house was Rs. 10. 245/ -. Smt. Mehrunnissa filed an application under S. 4 of the Partition Act praying that she be permitted to purchase the share of the plaintiffs on payment of the value of their share in the house in suit according to the valuation determined by the Commissioner. Smt. Mehrunnissa had also filed an objection against the report of the Commissioner. THE learned Munsif Havali, Lucknow by his order dated 28th October, 1967, disposed of the objections raised against the Commissioner's report as well as the application under Section 4 of the Partition Act. THE operative part of his order was as follows: - "i accordingly confirm the report of the Commissioner regarding valuation of the property in suit which is supported by data. THE property in suit is the entire house and is thus valued at Rs. 10,245/ -. In case the contesting defendant wants to purchase the share of the plaintiffs, they shall pay the price of that portion of the house in suit according to the above valuation. In case the contesting defendant is not prepared to purchase the share of the plaintiffs, the share of the plaintiffs shall be separated according to partition scheme subject to the objection against the same having been disposed of. THE contesting defendant shall intimate his option within a week, failing which the objections against partition scheme shall be disposed of on 25-11-1967. "

(2.) THE opposite-party No. 3 filed a revision against the order dated 28th October, 1967 in this Court being Revision No. 225 of 1967. That revision was dismissed on 9th May, 1973. THE operative part of the order was in the following terms: - "the order of the Court below therefore does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. THE revision has no force and is dismissed. THE applicant is given two week's time to deposit the amount of plaintiff's share, failing which proceedings for partition shall proceed. "

(3.) THE learned counsel for the plaintiffs, however, submitted that the Court below had no jurisdiction to condone the delay and extend the period granted by this Court to make the deposit. THE defendant No. 3 with a view to meet this objection had moved an application seeking extension of time and condonation of delay.