LAUTI RAM Vs. JODHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1441 of 1978 and 1442 of 1978, as the question involved is common in both the cases.

(2.) In execution of a decree in the Executing Court, the Court passed two orders on 13th December, 1975. One of the orders was disposing of the objection petition dated 5th February, 1973, filed by the judgment-debtor contending that the Girdawar who delivered the possession of 190 Kanals of land to the decree-holders on 17th January, 1973, did not assess fair compensation for the standing crops. The Court have held that the objectors were entitled to additional sum of Rs. 851/- as compensation for the standing crops over and above the sum of Rs. 2185/- assessed by the Girdawar. By the second order, the Court disposed of the application dated 19th January, 1974 of the decree-holders and the objection petition dated 28th August, 1972 and 26th October, 1972, of the judgment-debtor which were consolidated by the order dated 27th July, 1974 of the Additional District Judge, Sonepat. The Executing Court ordered that warrant for delivery of the possession of 13 kanals of land be issued and the decree-holders would be entitled to select the land of their choice except the land which was under wells and tube-wells and structures etc. Dissatisfied with the same, the decree-holders filed two separate appeals against these two orders. Both the appeals were duly entertained and admitted. At the time of the final hearing, it was noticed that the orders appealed against were not properly filed with the appeals. A certified copy of the orders which should have with the appeals. A certified copy of the orders which should have been filed with one appeal was filed with the other appeal. When this was brought to the notice of decree holder, they moved an application under Order 41, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonations of the delay. In respect of these applications, the lower Appellate court took the view that the appeals having been filed without a certified copy of the orders were not properly filed and dismissed the appeals as such. Dissatisfied with the same, the decree-holders have filed these two petitions in this Court.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the view taken by the lower appellate court is highly technical and justice could not be denied on that ground alone. The two appeals filed by the decree-holders in the office were duly entertained and were later on admitted by the Presiding Officer. No such objection was taken at any time. When it was brought to the notice of the decree-holder, he immediately moved an application for making the necessary correction. The decree-holder could not be allowed to suffer on this technical ground because this mistake was never pointed out by the office when it entertained the appeal. In any case, since both the appeals were filed simultaneously, the mistake could be said to be bonafide.