9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (9) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment issued a notification under a.' 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which was followed by a notification under Section 6 in September 1966 acquiring 104 kanals and 18 marlas of land out of the land agreed to be sold. The Collector made an award of the compensation for the acquired land, against which a reference was made to the Court of the District Judge. In May, 1968 the compensation was enhanced to a sum over ₹ 2 lakhs. In the mean time on April 15, 1967, the appellant-company instituted a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated August 9, 1968. This suit was dismissed by the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurgaon on August 13, 1968. A Regular First Appeal (No. 216 of 1968) against the dismissal of the sui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sides decided on August 30, 1969 to continue the order of stay pending the decision of the appeal by the High Court. According to him, the question whether the original agreement had become frustrated or was alive and deserved to be specifically enforced, would have an important bearing on the question of apportionment of compensation. 4. The respondents preferred a revision to the High Court against this order and a learned Single Judge on March 18, 1969 reversed the order continuing stay of the proceedings under Section 30 and further directed payment of ₹ 1,78,000 to the respondents. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission of the Court. Before the learned Additional District Judge, the question arose as to whether under the order of the High Court dated March 18, 1969, the sum of ₹ 1,78,000 was to be paid immediately or after the decision of the reference under Section 30. The parties apparently desired the learned Additional Judge to decide this question judicially on a consideration of the circumstances of the case. Both parties were accordingly heard and the learned Additional District Judge in a detailed order dated April 19, 1969 expressed his conclusion thus: To my mind it seems that the decision of the reference under Section 30, is to take place first and it is thereafter that the applicants shall be paid amount upto ₹ 1,78,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. 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 no jurisdictional infirmity made out in the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated August 30, 1968, which would justify interference on revision under Section 115 C.P.C. In regard to the order dated May 8, 1969, it was further complained that this order was made ex parte without notice to the appellant. It was contended by Shri Gupte that in face of the judicial order dated April 19, 1969 mad by the learned Additional District Judge after hearing both sides at length, it was not open to the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns. 7. The position thus seems to be firmly established that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 115, it is not competent to the High Court to correct errors of fact however gross or even errors of law unless the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. Clauses (a) and (b) of this section on their plain reading quite clearly do not cover the present case. It was not contended, as indeed it was not possible to contend, that the learned Additional District Judge had either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or had failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested in him, in recording the order that the proceedings under reference be stayed till the decision of the appeal by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the agreement by the respondents (petitioners in the High Court) to the condition imposed on them, to file an undertaking in that Court not to dispose of or otherwise transfer any interest by creating encumbrance over the remaining land which, was the subject-matter of the agreement dated August 9, 1968, without the previous permission of the Court. There is nothing in the order of the High Court or on the record to which our attention was drawn, showing or even suggesting that the appellant had agreed to the revision being allowed. The order of the High Court dated March 18, 1969 must, therefore, be set aside. 9. The ex parte order dated May 8, 1969 is equally difficult to sustain. In para 5 of the respondents' application dated Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
