AJAY DABRA versus PYARE RAM & ORS.

AJAY DABRA versus PYARE RAM & ORS.

The High Court was correct to dismiss the condonation application under Section 5 because the appellant's explanation (insufficient funds to pay court fee) was not a sufficient ground given that Section 149 CPC permitted filing a deficient appeal and curing the defect later; further, on merits the assignment and claim for specific performance were unsustainable because the purchaser (a non-agriculturist company) had not obtained the permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and the assignment lacked necessary consent, so specific performance could not be granted.

Parties
Appellant: Ajay Dabra; Respondent: Pyare Ram & Ors.; Respondent: Surender Singh; Respondent: M/s Himalayan Ski Village Pvt. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (civil Appellate Jurisdiction) / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 17.12.2018 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla; Final Judgment on Condonation of Delay and Specific Performance
Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
Condonation of Delay, Section 5 Limitation Act, 1963, Court Fees, Section 149 CPC, Section 118 Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, Specific Performance, Transfer to Non Agriculturist
Limitation Civil Procedure Property Law Land Law Contract Condonation of Delay Section 5 Limitation Act, 1963 Court Fees +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ajay Dabra

Appellant

Pyare Ram & Ors.

Respondent

Surender Singh

Respondent

M/s Himalayan Ski Village Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (civil Appellate Jurisdiction) / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 17.12.2018 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla; Final Judgment on Condonation of Delay and Specific Performance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay of 254 days in filing first appeal could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
  2. 2 Whether inability to pay court fee is sufficient reason for condonation of delay when Section 149 CPC permits curing deficiency of court fee
  3. 3 Whether assignment of purchaser's rights to the plaintiff without required governmental permission or seller's consent rendered suit for specific performance unsustainable under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court was correct to dismiss the condonation application under Section 5 because the appellant's explanation (insufficient funds to pay court fee) was not a sufficient ground given that Section 149 CPC permitted filing a deficient appeal and curing the defect later; further, on merits the assignment and claim for specific performance were unsustainable because the purchaser (a non-agriculturist company) had not obtained the permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and the assignment lacked necessary consent, so specific performance could not be granted.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed.
  • Order dated 17.12.2018 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CMP(M) No.75 of 2018 & CMP(M) No.76 of 2018 affirmed.