AMAR SINGH Vs. SHRI ROOP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff instituted a suit, under, the H.P. Debt Reduction Act, for possession by way of redemption of mortgage, of, the suit property AND for accounts. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiff instituted an appeal before the learned District Judge, Shimla, whereupon, the latter allowed the plaintiff's appeal and pronounced a decree for possession of the suit property, subject to payment of Rs.200/-, as redemption money, by the plaintiff, to the defendant/respondent herein. The learned District Judge, also directed that the aforesaid quantum of money, being liquidated by the plaintiff within a period of six months, period whereof was enjoined to commence, from, the date of the learned First Appellate Court, pronouncing its decision upon Civil Appeal No. 96-S/13 of 1999. Apparently, the aforesaid quantum of redemption money, remained unliquidated, by the plaintiff vis-a-vis the defendant, within, the time stipulated, in the verdict pronounced by the learned First Appellate Court.

(2.) Before proceeding to determine, the validity(ies) of the endeavours, made, by the plaintiff, to seek enlargement, of, the peremptory period, prescribed in the decree pronounced, by the learned District Judge, Shimla, (i) it would be necessary, to, allude to the trite fact, of, the defendant impugning, the judgement and decree, pronounced by the learned First Appellate Court, by his instituting, a Regular Second Appeal, before this Court, (ii) the aforesaid Regular Second Appeal bearing RSA No. 503 of 2002-G, being disposed off, by this Court under a pronouncement recorded, on, 02.03.2013. (iii) A perusal of the order sheets, of, the aforesaid RSA, disclose, of, the plaintiff being arrayed, as a respondent, in the aforesaid RSA, (iv) AND his being initially represented on 14.11.2002, by his duly constituted counsel, (v) whereafter, upto a final verdict being pronounced, upon RSA No.503 of 2002, he stood represented by his duly constituted counsel. (vi) Since, the pronouncement, of, a verdict, upon, the apposite Civil Appeal No. 96-S/13 of 1999, by the learned First Appellate Court, upto, a decision being recorded by this Court, upon, RSA No. 503 of 2002-G, the plaintiff visibly failing, to liquidate the mortgage money vis-a-vis the defendant, (vi) obviously the mandated time prescribed, in the verdict pronounced by the learned First Appellate Court, expired, much prior to a final verdict being pronounced by this Court, upon, the aforesaid RSA. A perusal of the order sheet recorded, on 30.10.2012 in RSA No.503 of 2012-G, discloses, of, the counsel for the plaintiff/respondent being directed to make an ascertainment, whether the mortgage sum of Rs.200/-, being or not deposited by the plaintiff. On ascertainments, qua the aforesaid facet, being made by the counsel, for the plaintiff, the latter on 29.11.2012, purveyed an information vis-a-vis the Court, qua the mortgage money being not deposited. Consequently, an application seeking enlargement of time, for, depositing the mortgage money was instituted before this Court.

(3.) The relevant hereat provisions, of, the CPC ARE borne in Order 34, Rule 7 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-