Nathi Ram vs Charan Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.

C.M. No. 61-C-II of 2012:

Allowed as prayed for.

Main Case:

Defendant No. 1 Nathi Ram has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 05.11.2011 (Annexure P-4), passed by the trial court, thereby allowing application (Annexure P-1) filed by respondents No. 1 to 4/plaintiffs for adjourning the suit sine die and accordingly, the suit has been adjourned sine die.

Plaintiffs have filed suit vide plaint (Annexure P-3) alleging that they and defendant No. 15 have become absolute owners in possession of the suit land by lapse of time as limitation period for redemption of the mortgage in their favour has expired.

Plaintiffs, in application (Annexure P-1) alleged that Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan and Others Vs. Sheo Ram and Others, has held that there is no limitation period to get the mortgage of the land redeemed, but the said judgment is under challenge in Hon''ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 11029 of 2008 and consequently, till decision of the said SLP, the suit be adjourned sine die.

Defendants, by filing reply (Annexure P-2), opposed the aforesaid application.

Learned trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-4), has allowed application (Annexure P-1), filed by the plaintiffs and has adjourned the suit sine die. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No. 1 has filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that mere pendency of the SLP in the Hon''ble Supreme Court is no ground to adjourn the suit sine die. On the other hand, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4/plaintiffs contended that since the issue of law involved in the suit is pending before Hon''ble Supreme Court, the suit has been rightly adjourned sine die by the trial court.

I have carefully considered the matter.

A lis cannot be adjourned sine die merely because an issue of law is pending adjudication in High Court or Supreme Court. If cases are adjourned sine die on this ground, then large number of cases would get adjourned sine die and proceedings would get stalled without any justification. A case can be decided on the basis of law, as it exists on the date of decision or on the date of suit, whatever may be appropriate, but a lis cannot be adjourned sine die on the ground that some issue of law is pending adjudication in a higher Court. Impugned order passed by the trial court is thus patently illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error.

Resultantly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial court is set aside. Application (Annexure P-1) filed by the plaintiffs for adjourning the suit sine die stands dismissed. Trial court is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall have any bearing on the merits of the suit. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 16.09.2013.