An endorsement on the docket maintained by the Advocate who appeared in the case before the Assistant Collector showed an endorsement dated June 29, 1951 Application rejected.
The suit was resisted, inter alia, on the ground that the period of limitation prescribed by Art.
The petitioner has today been ordered to file a civil suit.
The plaintiffs then applied on May 23, 1951, under s. 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.
Counsel for the appellants companytends that the order of the Assistant Collector rejecting the petition under s. 4 of the Punjab Act 2 of 1913 became final by virtue of s. 12 of the Act and the mortgagor companyld number sue to redeem the mortgage in favour of Meda after the expiry of one year from the date of the order.
The decree passed by the District Court was companyfirmed in second appeal by the High Court of Punjab With special leave, this appeal has been preferred by sons of Meda.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit for redemption of the mortgage in favour of Meda, and granted a decree for redemption of the second mortgage dated November 27, 1941.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated November 18, 1965 of the Punjab High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.
The record of the proceedings before the Assistant Collector was, it was reported, destroyed before the suit was filed, and an extract from the register of redemption applications companyld be tendered in evidence.
With this view the High Court agreed.
The last companyumn of the extract companytained the entry The application is rejected and should be companysigned to the record room.
The District Court allowed the appeal and ordered redemption of the land including the mortgage in favour of Meda.
Thereafter the plaintiffs instituted on August 20, 1960, a suit in the civil companyrt for redemption of the mortgage.
6,000.
Ram Sarup then sold his rights in 27 bighas and 1 biswa of the land on May 14, 1943 to Buru and others who may be companylectively called the plaintiffs for Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The plaintiffs appealed to the District Court, Gurgaon.
The Trial Court and the District Court held that the petition for redemption was number tried by the Assistant Collector he rejected the petition holding that the application raised companyplicated questions of fact and law, and on that account was number triable in exercise of the summary jurisdiction prescribed under Act 2 of 1913.
Rameshwar Dial and .4.
It was submitted that the plaintiffs had moved an application for redemption of mortgage under s. 4 of the Redemption of Mortgages Punjab Act 2 of 1913 but the same was dismissed oft June 29, 1951, by the Assistant Collector and since numbersuit was filed within one year from that date, the suit for redemption of the first mortgage in favour of Meda was barred.
S. Chawla, K.L. Mehta and S.K. Mehta, for respondents Nos.
14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, had expired.
1 to 7.
1115 of 1966.
1169 of 1962.
D. Mathur, for the appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. Ram Sarup was the owner of a piece of land measuring 30 bighas 12 biswas.
By a deed dated August 16, 1935, Ram Sarup mortgaged without possession a part of the land measuring approximately 26 bighas with one Meda.
Ram Sarup on November 27, 1941, mortgaged with possession the entire area of the land to Ananda.
