1943 (1) TMI 3 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the second application under Section 4 of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act.
2. Interpretation of Section 12 of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act regarding orders made by the Collector.
3. Applicability of Article 14 of the Limitation Act to orders made under Sections 6 to 11 of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act.
4. Interpretation of Section 13 of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act regarding the bar on further petitions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competency of the Second Application under Section 4 of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act:
The plaintiffs-appellants contended that a second application for redemption could not be presented under Act 2 of 1913, as per Section 13 of the Act. The Assistant Collector overruled this objection, holding that the former application had been rejected and not dismissed by his predecessor, hence Section 13 was inapplicable. The Subordinate Judge and the District Judge upheld this view, stating that the first application was premature and incompetent, and thus did not preclude a second application when the mortgage money had actually become due. The Full Bench agreed, stating that the Collector's rejection of the first application as premature did not bar a subsequent application under the Act.

2. Interpretation of Section 12 of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act:
The Full Bench considered whether the orders contemplated under Section 12 are confined to those made on the merits or cover all orders irrespective of the merits. It was held that Section 12 makes an order passed by the Collector under Sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or 11 conclusive unless the party aggrieved institutes a suit in the civil court within one year. The Bench concluded that the orders under Section 12 are not confined to those made on the merits but cover all orders according to their nature and character, focusing on the substance of the order rather than its form.

3. Applicability of Article 14 of the Limitation Act:
The Full Bench agreed that Article 14 of the Limitation Act applies to all suits instituted under Section 12 of the Act. However, it was clarified that the applicability of Article 14 depends on whether the suit is in substance to set aside some decision of the Collector. If the suit is to establish that the order of the Collector is erroneous, then it must be brought within one year. However, if the order is merely procedural and does not affect the substantive rights of the parties, the one-year limitation may not apply.

4. Interpretation of Section 13 of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act:
Section 13 states that the dismissal of a petition under this Act shall bar any further petition by the same petitioner or his representative in respect of the same mortgage. The Full Bench held that the Collector's rejection of the first application as premature did not amount to a dismissal under Section 13. Therefore, it did not bar a second application when the right to redeem had accrued. The Bench emphasized that the nature of the order and the surrounding circumstances must be considered to determine whether it constitutes a dismissal under Section 13.

Conclusion:
The Full Bench dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the District Judge's conclusion that the second application was competent and the Collector's order allowing redemption on payment of Rs. 1959 was valid. The Bench recommended that the Provincial Government consider amending the Act to clarify its provisions and avoid future disputes. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs throughout.