PURAN SINGH Vs. NATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARGUMENTS addressed by counsel and a reading of paper book reveal that Beeru Ram son of Mansa Ram was owner of agricultural land in dispute. He suffered a judgment and decree regarding that land in favour of Nathu Rain, respondent No. 1 on January 4, 1986. That judgment and decree were challenged by appellant Puran. Vide ex parte judgment and decree dated May 13, 1987, judgment and decree dated January 4, 1986, were set aside. Consequently, changes were effected in favour of Puran in the revenue record. Then Nathu Ram filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated May 13, 1987. His application was allowed on July 20, 1993 and proceedings were initiated in original suit filed by Puran challenging judgment and decree dated January 4, 1986. During pendency of those proceedings, Puran made a statement on August 13, 1994, withdrawing his suit. Regarding remaining plaintiffs in that suit, it was dismissed in default because of their absence on that date.

(2.) IT is also apparent from the records that in the meantime, Beeru Ram, original owner of property in dispute, also laid challenge to judgment and decree dated January 4, 1986, by filing a suit. His suit was dismissed in default. Perusal of records also indicates that during pendency of proceedings wherein challenge was made to the judgment and decree dated January 4, 1986, Beeru Ram and Puran joined hands together and former suffered decree in favour of latter on August 28, 1989, regarding same property, which was subject matter of judgment and decree dated January 4, 1986. Nathu Ram when came to know about subsequent judgment and decree passed in favour of Puran, filed civil suit No. 593 of 1995, wherein he sought declaration to the effect that judgment and decree dated August 28, 1989, in favour of Puran Chand be declared null and void being collusive one. It was also prayed that mutation No. 46 sanctioned on September 22, 1990 be set aside. It was also stated that he be declared exclusive owner in possession of land in dispute, on the basis of judgment and decree dated January 4, 1986, which has since become final between the parties. Similarly, Puran Chand also filed a suit for injunction with a prayer that Nathu. Ram be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession of the property in dispute of which he had become owner on the basis of judgment and decree dated August 28, 1989 and also on the basis of entries in revenue record.

(3.) SH . S.P. Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant has vehemently contended that suit filed by Nathu Ram was hopelessly time barred. Decree was passed in favour of the appellant on August 28, 1989. Suit challenging that decree was filed in the month of March, 1995. Suit was liable to be dismissed as the same was filed beyond period of limitation. He has stated that limitation to challenge that decree was three years only. He has relied upon the judgment in State of Punjab and others v. Gurdev Singh, Ashok Kumar, A.I.R. 1991 Supreme Court 2219, to support his contention. Shri Singh has further argued that appellant was in possession and as such courts were bound to issue injunction in his favour. He also stated that verification of plaint was not correct. There existed non-compliance of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10) and Order 20 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure and as such suit was liable to be dismissed. He prayed that appeal be accepted and judgment and decree passed be set aside.