IN RE: JAI KISHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Jai Kishan, who is an Advocate of this Court, represented Dalip Singh and Ors. Respondents in Regular First Appeal No. 295 of 2005, which was decided by this Bench on 26 -3 -1951. The Pepsu State had also been arrayed as a Respondent and the Advocate General had appeared for it, whereas Shri Anent Ram was the counsel of the other Respondents. One of the points involved in the appeal was whether a decree for possession of the suit property could be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs -Respondents without their having got the order of Raja Sahib Nalagarh. dated 20 -10 -1994 set aside within the period prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act. The suit for avoiding that order of the Raja Sahib had not been brought within a year, as required by Article 14 of that Act. The question was decided by us in favour of the Appellants, as Shri Jai Kishan had conceded that in those circumstances the suit was not maintainable. We accepted the appeal on 26 -3 -1951 and it was mentioned in our judgment that it had been conceded by Mr. Jai Kishan, counsel of the Respondents, that no decree for possession could be passed in their favour till the order of Raja Sahib Nalagarh dated 2 -10 -1994 stood; but limitation for avoiding that order had expired long ago.

(2.) I agree.