The sale deed was to be registered by April 30, 1964.
151/141 C.P.C. for clarification of its order dated March 18, 1969.
It is against these two orders that the present appeal by special leave has been presented and the short argument pressed by Shri Gupte was that the order of the High Court dated March 18, 1969 is unsustainable because there was numberjurisdictional infirmity made out in the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated August 30, 1968, which would justify interference on revision under s. 115 P.C. In regard to the order dated May 8, 1969, it was further companyplained that this order was made ex parte without numberice to the appellant.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 18, 1969 and May 8, 1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.
216 of 1968 against the dismissal of the suit is pending in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The order of payment of this amount was framed in the following words I do feel that in view of the fact that the suit filed by the respondent company has been dismissed, prima facie, it is reasonable that the proceedings under section 30 of the Act should companytinue, but the petitioners may number be allowed actual payment of more than Rs.
This prayer was Contested by the appellant company on the ground that an appeal against the decree dismissing the suit had already been presented in the High Court and that the proceedings for payment of companypensation should companytinue to remain stayed pending the disposal of the appeal.
also fixed May 21, 1969 .,for the evidence of the parties.
The learned Additional District Judge after hearing both sides decided on August 30, 1969 to companytinue the order of stay pending the decision of the appeal by the High Court.
It appears that the dispute as to apportionment of companypensation under s. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act was also referred to the Court.
After the dismissal of the suit, the respondents applied to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge for companytinuing the proceedings and for making an order of payment of companypensation in their favour.
The balance of the amount due in respect of the land of the petitioners shall be kept with the Government to be disbursed in accordance with the decision in the regular first appeal.
In May, 1968 the companypensation was enhanced to a sum over Rs.
1,78,000 to the respondents.
On February 28, 1968 the learned Additional District Judge took the view that the entire matter in his Court was companyered by the civil suit, it being further observed in the order that even the question of the jurisdiction of the Senior Subordinate Judge to determine the amount of companypensation was to be first decided by the civil companyrt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1,78,000.
On this view, the reference proceedings were stayed pending the decision of the civil companyrt.
As it was number so registered, both parties blamed each other for the breach.
1014 of 1968 and M. No.
2 lakhs.
paid as earnest money.
The Collector made an award of the companypensation for the acquired land, against which a reference was made to the Court of the District Judge.
In May, 1966 the Government issued a numberification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which was followed by a numberification under s. 6 in September 1966 acquiring 104 kanals and 18 marlas of land out of the land agreed to be sold.
The respondents preferred a revision to the High Court against this order and a learned Single Judge on March 18, 1969 reversed the order companytinuing stay of the proceedings under s. 30 and further directed payment of Rs.
In the mean time on April 15, 1967, the appellant,company instituted a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated August 9, 1968.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dua, J. By means of an agreement dated August 9, 1963, the appellant company agreed to purchase from the respondents, land measuring 264 kanals and 12 marlas.
This suit was dismissed by the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurgaon on August 13, 1968.
1575 of 1969.
1,87,000 was.
V. Gupte and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
A sum of Rs.
R. Chaudhuri, for the respondents.
1863 of 1969.
