SULTAN AHMAD ETC. vs Ch. FEROZE KHAN
The petitioners-plaintiffs filed a pre-emption suit which was decreed in their favour. During the pendency of the suit, their application for amendment of the plaint to correct the description of the land was dismissed by the trial court, and a revision against that order was subsequently dismissed by the High Court. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court via a petition for special leave to appeal. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of the petition and the proper recourse regarding the amendment and the identity of the land. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners had adequate alternative remedies to seek rectification of the decree during execution proceedings or by filing an appeal against the main decree, wherein questions regarding the identity of the land and extension of time for depositing the pre-emption price could be appropriately addressed. The court laid down the principle that an interlocutory order refusing amendment merges into the final decree, and matters concerning decree execution or pre-emption price deposits should be agitated in the substantive appeal against the decree.
- Whether an order disallowing the amendment of a plaint merges into the final decree of the suit?
- Can a petitioner seek rectification of a decree or extension of time for depositing the pre-emption price in an appeal against the main decree?
- Does the dismissal of a revision petition against an interlocutory order bar the challenge to the decree in substantive appeal proceedings?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The petitioners-plaintiffs filed a pre--emption suit which stands decreed in their favour on 24-2-1980, for the land shown in their plaint and the corresponding sale- deed.
2. During the pendency of that suit and before its decretal by the trial Court the plaintiffs/petitioners on 24-1-1980 filed an application for amendment of the plaint pleading that the description of the land as given in the plaint was somewhat incorrect. However, as the plaintiffs could not indicate as to what were the correct field numbers, the amendment/application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge by a composite order dated 20-2-1980 whereby at the same time as abovementioned the suit was decreed with reference to land as described in the plaint/sale-deed. A Revision being C. R. 346/80 against that portion of the order, which had disallowed the amendment was dis--missed by the High Court on 19-3-1980. The petitioner/plaintiffs have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
3. As the petitioners have remedy for getting the decree rectified in case objection to its execution is taken in execution proceedings, or by way o appeal against the main decree, if it is not regarding the correct land, we d not want to entertain this petition or to express any opinion on the merits o the plea now sought to be advanced regarding identity of the land lest it ma prejudice one side or the other. In fact the High Court also was of the opinion as stated in para. 5 of its order that after the decree, that part of the order which had disallowed amendment bad merged into the decree (or t put it otherwise with the remaining part of that order). However, after giving this finding nothing else should have been said which was likely to affect the right of appeal of both the parties qua the merits of that decree as a whole or in part.
4. At this stage learned counsel submitted that the last date given to the petitioners for depositing the pre-emption price was up to 10-5-1980. He submitted that he had filed the present petition in this Court in time, and also had tried for its early fixation before that date in Chambers for stay, but the case could not be fixed due to stoppage of this practice and preoccupation with other cases.
He further submitted that this case was in the list yesterday but could not be taken up by this Court due to its preoccupation with other cases though he remained present in Court throughout the day. In these circumstances he submitted that we should extend the time for depositing the decretal amount further for few days, because, he had applied for stay of operation of the decree, but it was not his fate if he was kept in suspense or his case was not fixed or if fixed was not taken up. The factual points made in this respect are correct, but as we were told that the petitioners intended to fide R. F. A. In the High Court against the main decree, the petitioners can make the requisite request in that appeal and in that forum which we are sure will be attended to in accordance with law.
5. The petition is dismissed with the above observations.