BRIJ MOHAN Vs. CHHAJU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 92, 93, 94 and 100 of 1990 since common question of law and fact arise for determination therein.

(2.) Reference to the relevant facts has been made from Civil Revision No. 92 of 1990 for resolving the question of law. Keshav Ram owned 1/2 share in land measuring 39 Kanals 16 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Siwana-Bawal. He sold his share to Mahabir Parshad and Ashok Kumar vide sale deed dated 13/07/1982, for Rs. 42,500.00. Chhaju Ram filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption which was registered as Suit No. 521 of 1982. He claimed superior right of pre-emption on the ground that he was the vendor's father's brother's son. The suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 8/09/1984, on payment of Rs. 48,123.00. The vendees challenged the judgement and decree of the Subordinate Judge in Civil Appeal No. 252 of 1984. The appeal was fixed for arguments on 21/05/1985, on which date the counsel for the vendees/ appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'vendees') made a statement that he had no instructions to appear and pursue the appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court for non-prosecution vide order dated 21/05/1985, an application for restoration and re-admission of the appeal was filed on the ground that the vendees challenged the vires of the Punjab Pre-emption Act in the apex Court through various writ petitions. The same came up for motion hearing on 26/04/1985 and the following order was passed :-

(3.) The re-admission of the appeal was sought on the ground that on the date when the counsel for the vendees made a statement that he had no instructions to prosecute the appeal on their behalf, further proceedings in the appeal had been stayed by the apex Court and the appellate Court seized of the appeal could not proceed with the appeal in view of the stay order granted by the apex Court. The appellate Court, on the basis of the evidence produced before it, came to the conclusion that the stay order dated 26/04/1985 was not communicated to it either on the date when the counsel made the statement pleading that he had no instructions to prosecute the appeal or at any time prior thereto and after so holding it rejected the application for re-admission of the appeal and this order is under challenge in the revision petition.