KIRPA RAM Vs. LACHHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed on 11th November, 1991 by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur allowing the application made by Lachhman, respondent No 1 extending the time for moving an application before the Collector, Ghumarwin is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition may be stated in brief. One Gajan, the predecessor -in -interest of Lachhman and others, the respondents, owned and possessed the disputed property, which was mortgaged by him for Ks 731 05 through mortgage deed dated 31st December,1i949 with Kirpa Ram, petitioner. The respondents preferred an application before the Collector, Ghumarwin under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking redemption of the mortgage. The Col lector on 28th February, 1977 made an order under the provisions of the Act and ordered the mortgage to be redeemed with direction to the petitioner to deliver back the possession to the respondents. Aggrieved by this decision passed by the Collector, the petitioner Kirpa Ram challenged the order by filing suit in the Court of Sub -Judge, Ghumarwin as per the requirements of section 12 of the Act.

(3.) Civil Suit No 92 of 1977 preferred by Kirpa Ram was partly decreed. A decree for declaration was granted to the effect that the order passed by the Collector on 28th February, 1977 to the extent stated in the judgment was illegal. The Court, however, declined to grant decree for permanent injunction or in the alternative for possession Against this judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, an appeal was carried by Kirpa Ram, which was heard and decided by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur on 3rd August, 1989. The order of redemption passed by the Collector was held to be illegal due to non -observance of the procedure prescribed under law. While disposing of the appeal, a direction was made to the effect that since the order of redemption passed by the Collector had been held to be illegal, the natural consequences would be that the petition for redemption preferred by Lachhman and others before Collector, Ghumarwin shall be deemed to be not finally disposed, resultantly it shall be lawful for the Collector to proceed in the matter after complying with the provisions of the Redemption Act. The respondents were directed to apply to the Collector within a reasonable time, which was fixed in the order as 30 days after receipt of the copies of the judgment, and the Collector thereafter was to proceed and dispose of the original petition for redemption afresh.