SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDESH VITHAL HANAMSHETH
Versus
SADANAND SHIVRAO KOPPAL
Decided on January 9, 1996
Limitation - Final Decree - The court held that the application for final decree was not barred by limitation as the preliminary decree was not prepared in accordance with Order 34 Rule 7, and it was an obligation of the court to do so. The court directed the trial court to prepare the preliminary decree as required by Order 34 Rule 7, and allowed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The only question for determination was whether the application for final decree was barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for final decree was not barred by limitation as the preliminary decree was not prepared in accordance with the relevant rule, and it was an obligation of the court to do so. The court directed the trial court to prepare the preliminary decree as required by the rule and allowed the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the application for final decree was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for the lapse of the court, a party cannot be penalized, and directed the trial court to prepare the preliminary decree as required by the rule.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the trial court was directed to prepare the preliminary decree as required by the rule.
( 1 ) LEAVE granted.
( 2 ) THE only question for determination is whether the application for final decree as filed by the appellants was barred by limitation, as has been held by the courts below.
( 3 ) THERE is no dispute that it is Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which applies and which has prescribed three years as the period of limitation to be reckoned from the date right to apply accrues. The contention of the appellant is that no preliminary decree as required by order 34 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code having been prepared, which was required to be, as the suit was for redemption of mortgage, he could not have really made an application for final decree as contemplated by Rule 8 of this Order; and, as such, there could have been no question of his application for final decree being barred by limitation.
( 4 ) THOUGH this was not the point urged in the courts below, the same being a pure question of law and the preliminary decree as prepared being a part of the record available to us, we have permitted the learned counsel for the appellants to urge this point. A perusal of the preliminary decree, which is at pp. 19 and 20 of Vol. II, shows that it is not in accordance with Order 34 rule 7, which requires, inter alia, the taking of account of what was due to the defendant towards principal and interest. This is necessary to enable the plaintiff to pay the amount in question, whereafter he can ask for preparation of final decree, as would appear from a reading of Order 34 Rule 8. This not having been done and it being an obligation of the court to do so, we are of the view that the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants merits acceptance, inasmuch as it is a settled position in law that for lapse of the court, a party cannot be penalised.
( 5 ) THE appeal is, therefore, allowed and we direct the trial court to prepare the preliminary decree as required by Order 34 Rule 7, whereafter the appellants would act in accordance with the preliminary decree and then apply for final decree on requirements of Rule 8 being satisfied. It is apparent that the application for final decree would be made within three years of drawing of the preliminary decree.
( 6 ) THE appeal is allowed accordingly by setting aside the impugned judgment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.