TARSEM SINGH MAJOR Vs. JAGINDRO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raises the question whether the learned District Judge was justified in dismissing an application for the amendment of a decree.

(2.) THE allotment of a plot of land in favour of one Shrimati Jogindro, a displaced person from the West Punjab, was cancelled by the Custodian of Evacuee Property on the ground that the allottee had left no land in Pakistan on the basis of which the allotment could have been made. Jogindro challenged the correctness of this decision by means of an action in a Court of law and claimed relief on two grounds, namely (1) that she was aw owner of a plot of land situate in Pakistan, and (2) that the allotment was cancelled without her being afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The trial Court found in favour of the plaintiff and granted her the decree prayed for. The learned district Judge, Mr. I. N. Kapur, to whom an appeal was preferred refrained from deciding whether the land in Pakistan belonged to the plaintiff or to the defendants, for this question had to be decided by the Custodian of Evacuee property and not by a civil Court. He held, however, that as no notice was served on the plaintiff before the order of cancellation was made, the order of cancellation could not be supported. In this view of the case he upheld the order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. In paragraph 4 of his order he observed as follows : "now the learned Senior Subordinate Judge held that no notice was served on the plaintiff respondent and as such the Rahibilitation department had no right to cancel the allotment. It is on the basis of his finding that a decree was granted to the plaintiff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " the concluding paragraph of his judgment runs as follows :

(3.) THE office of the District Judge thereupon drew up a decree which was in the following terms : "this appeal coming on for hearing on the 3rd day of April, 1954 before me (Shri Jagdish Narain Kapur, District Judge, Hoshiarpur) in the presence of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . it is ordered that the appeal be dismissed and the judgment and decree of the lower Court, dated 18-1-1954, by which he granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent against the defendants-appellants for the declaration as prayed is affirmed. " no mention was made in the body of the decree that the order of the trial Court had been upheld on one ground only, namely that Jogindro had not been afforded an opportunity of being heard.