TMI Blog1969 (9) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has and 1 biswa of the land on May 14, 1943 to Buru and Ors.-who may be collectively called 'the plaintiffs'-for ₹ 6,000. The plaintiffs then applied on May 23, 1951, under Section 4 of the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act 2 of 1913 for redeeming the mortgage in favour of Meda. This application was rejected on June 29, 1951. Thereafter the plaintiffs instituted on August 20, 1960, a suit in the civil court for redemption of the mortgage. The suit was resisted, inter alia, on the ground that the period of limitation prescribed by Article 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, had expired. It was submitted that the plaintiffs had moved an application for redemption of mortgage under Section 4 of the Redemption of Mortgages ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d complicated questions of fact and law, and on that account was not triable in exercise of the summary jurisdiction prescribed under Act 2 of 1913. With this view the High Court agreed. 3. Counsel for the appellants contends that the order of the Assistant Collector rejecting the petition under Section 4 of the Punjab Act 2 of 1913 became final by virtue of Section 12 of the Act and the mortgagor could not sue to redeem the mortgage in favour of Meda after the expiry of one year from the date of the order. 4. The relevant provisions of the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act 2 of 1913 may first be noticed. By Section 4 it is provided: The mortgagor or other person entitled to institute a suit for redemption may, at any time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the mortgage and further provides for making deposit by the mortgagor within the period to be fixed by the Collector. Section 12 provides by the first paragraph : Any party aggrieved by an order made under Sections6, 7, 8,9, 10 or 11 of this Act may institute a suit to establish his rights in respect of the mortgage; but, subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order shall be conclusive. Article 14 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act, 1908, provides that a suit to set aside any act or order of an officer of Government in his official capacity, not herein otherwise expressly provided for, shall be filed within one year of the date of the act or order. 5. We are unable to agree with the appellant's contention that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has jurisdiction to make and has the effect of barring the claim for relief unless it is set aside. The order of the Assistant Collector merely declared the rights of the plaintiff under the common law: it did not bar the claim to relief for redemption in a civil suit, and on that account it was not an order which was required to be set aside. 6. In Tulsi Das v. Diala Ram, I.L.R.[1944] Lah.1 . Tek Chand, J., delivering the principal judgment of the Court dealt with the question which falls to be determined in this case. The learned Judge observed : ...the suit, referred to in Section 12 is to establish the 'erroneous nature of the order'. Now what is the error committed by the Collector in his order which the mortgagor mus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
