GURDIAL SINGH Vs. MASSA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRELIMINARY objections to the competency of these two connected execution second appeals have been raised. These rest on the following facts. Gurdial singh and Gurdev Singh appellants, who are brothers, had brought separate execution applications in the Court of the Sub Judge 1st Class, Muktsar. The judgment-debtors filed objections under Sections 47 and 151 of the Civil P. C. read with Section 19-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. By separate but identical orders recorded on the same day, i. e. , March 8, 1968, the learned sub Judge partly accepted the objection petitions. The present appellants presented two separate appeals on April 25, 1968 being Civil Miscellaneous appeals Nos. 21 and 22 of 1968 against the abovesaid orders which came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur. In his judgment dated March 12, 1969, the learned Additional District Judge dealt with both the appeals together observing in the opening part thereof that as the facts of both are similar and the same points were involved, these appeals would be disposed of by one judgment. In the operative part at the end he also observed as follows :-

(2.) AGAINST the abovesaid judgment, two separate appeals being E. S. A. Nos. 1280 and 1281 of 1969 have been instituted by Gurdial Singh and Gurdev singh appellants separately. One of the preliminary objections, which is common to both relates to the insufficient stamping of the trial Court's judgment. It is alleged on behalf of the respondents that both the appeals were presented in this Court on July 14, 1969 when an objection amongst others was raised by the office that the copy of the trial Court's judgment in each appeal was insufficiently stamped. By the office order dated July 21, 1969, the two appeals were returned to the counsel to be refiled within a week after compliance with the objections. These were refiled by the counsel on July 28, 1'969 when the alleged deficiency of Rs. 1. 40 PS. only in the stamp affixable on the trial Court's judgment was duly made up. It is the common case of the parties that on July 28, 1969, the limitation for filing the two appeals had expired and consequently the deficiency in the stamp was made up beyond the period of limitation.

(3.) THE basic contention of Mr. D. S. Nehra, learned counsel for the respondent, on these facts is that as the trial Court's judgment was inadequately stamped, there was no appeal before the Court till the insufficiency of the stamps was removed. Since this it is argued was done after the expiry of the period of limitation, no valid appeal in the eye of law was presented within time and consequently both the appeals are not competent.