DHAN RAJ PUROHIT Vs. L RS OF RAMSWAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-defendant no. 1 filed an appeal on 5. 9. 88 against the judgment and decree dt. 11. 8. 86 passed by the Distt. Judge, Bikaner. THE appeal was admitted on 9. 9. 88 subject to the objection of limitation. On 1. 5. 89 on the application seeking review/clarification of the order dt. 15. 12. 88, it was ordered that it is open to Mr. Chacha to argue the preliminary objection regarding limitation at the time when the appeals are listed for hearing. It was also ordered that the case be listed alongwith S. B. Civil First Appeal No. 87/86 arising out of the judgment and final decree passed by the District Judge, Bikaner on 11. 8. 86 tiled by the defendant who is respondent no. 4 in this appeal. Both the cases have come up before me on 19. 8. 92

(2.) BEFORE proceeding with the case Mr. B. L. Purohit respondent no. 3 moved an application dt. 19. 8 92 that on earlier occasion when the case was heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Mathur, there were some suggestions for compromise and the case was adjourned.

(3.) MR. Dinesh Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had no notice of the decision of the judgement of 11. 8. 86 and submits that in a suit for partition unless stamps are filed decree cannot be prepared and period of limitation will start when the decree is signed. He also submits that S. 12 of the Limitation Act will not applicable as the appellant has not prayed for condonation. MR. H. C Jain, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has adopted the argument of MR. Maheswari and submits that the operative part of the judgment dt. 11. 8. 86 itself shows that the decree was to be prepared only after furnishing stamps which were to be supplied within a month. He further submits that this appeal is within time as decree was actually drawn up on 30. 7. 88.