RAMVILAS G HEDA Vs. ACHALDAS D OSWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision raises the vexed question, whether the right of redemption was barred by law of limitation. The revision application is directed against the order dated 17th October, 1990, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, S. D. Kolhapur, in Final Decree proceeding registered as Application No. 21 of 1975, whereby an application moved under Order XXXIV, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C. P. C. for short) praying for final decree in Special Civil Suit No. 78 of 1969; wherein preliminary decree was drawn on 18-1-72, came to be rejected holding it to be barred by law of limitation. Hereinafter the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the original suit. OUTLINE CHRONOLOGY the outline chronology giving rise to the present Revision application is as under: 1. The suit property is a building bearing City Survey No. 281 situated at B Ward, Gujari, Kolhapur. The said property was originally owned by one Shri Pandit Govind Shinde-Naik.

(2.) THE suit property was mortgaged with original defendants deceased defendant No. 1 late Shri Achaldas Oswal for a period of 5 years. The petitioner (original plaintiff) had filed a suit registered as Special Civil Suit No. 78 of 1969 against the defendant for redemption of mortgage. Preliminary decree was passed on 18-1-1972; wherein it was directed that the plaintiff shall deposit Rs. 11,000/- in the Court on or before 17-4-1972. The plaintiff was granted liberty to apply for appointment of the Commissioner in the Final Decree proceeding to take account of the expenses incurred by the mortgagee/defendant No. 1 in respect of the mortgage security including payment of municipal taxes and repairs. It was also directed in the preliminary decree that order regarding possession of the suit property and costs of the suit be passed in the Final Decree.

(3.) THE plaintiff could not deposit the aforesaid amount in the Court on or before 17-4-1972. He made an application to the Court being Misc. Application No. 85 of 1972 for extension of time to make payment as directed in the preliminary decree. It appears that on 30-1-1975, the application made in this behalf was rejected by the Court. The plaintiff did not challenge this order of rejection but could obtain permission to make necessary deposit without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Accordingly deposit was made by plaintiff on 6-2-1975.