SHABAN SHEIKH Vs. AMA NAIKU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application against an order of the D. J. Anantnag dated 11 -11 -71 by which he has remanded the case denovo to the learned Sub -Judge Shopian for retrial of the case on merits. The petition arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) ONE Mst. Khitiji D/O Shaban Sheikh sold the land in dispute to the plaintiff respondent Ama Naiku by a sale deed dated 15 -12 -65 for a sum of Rs. 2.000/ -. The plaintiff was already a tenant of the land and by virtue of the proposed sale deed he was to acquire the right of ownership. The plaintiff, however, after having executed the sale deed failed to appear for registration before the Sub -Registrar as a result of which the Sub -Registrar refused registration of the sale deed. Against this order the plaintiff respondent filed an appeal before the Registrar. The Registrar, who is the D.J., by his order dated 18 -5 -66 upheld the order of the Sub -Registrar and held that as the vendor had sold the land to somebody else, he referred the plaintiff to seek remedy through a properly constituted suit in the civil court. The plaintiff then filed the present suit under S. 77 of the Registration Act for setting aside the order of the Sub -Registrar. The trial court of the Sub -Registrar Shopian held that as the suit was filed beyond 30 days as required by the provisions of S. 77 of the Registration Act, it was barred by limitation and he accordingly dismissed the suit, without entering into the merits of the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff then went up in appeal to the court of the D.J. which took a different view and found that as the copy of the order of the D.J. was given to the petitioner on 23 -5 -66, that day had to be excluded and the plaintiff was entitled to bring the suit till 23 -6 -66 and since the suit had been filed on 23 -6 -66 it was within time. The learned judge was obviously of the view that the provisions of S.12(2) of the Limitation Act were applicable and the plaintiff was entitled to the extension of time for the copy of the order of the Registrar against which the suit was filed. The D.J. accordingly set aside the order of the Sub -Registrar and sent the suit for re -trial on merits. Hence this revision.

(3.) COUNSEL for both parties have argued at great length and have confirmed their arguments to the question of limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner defendant submitted that the provisions of S. 12(2) were not at all attracted and the plaintiff was not entitled to the time spent in taking a copy of the judgment of the D.J. Counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that as the suit was directed against the order of the Registrar, unless the copy of his order was taken, the suit could not proceed and hence the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of S. 12(2) of the Limitation Act.