CR No.350 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.350 of 2011 Date of decision: 8.12.2011 Mohan Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Maghar Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The defendant-petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the trial court dated 13.10.2010 to the extent where the trial court has allowed plaintiff-respondents to deposit Rs.950/- as per the terms in the judgment and decree dated 10.5.1968 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. 2. Brief facts may be noticed. Nirmal Singh and Maghar Singh, sons of Surain Singh filed a suit for declaration which was decreed by the trial court on 31.8.1967. However on appeal, the same was modified vide judgment and decree dated 10.5.1968 with the following observations:- “10. In view of my above findings I allow this appeal partially to this extent that the suit of the plaintiff- 1 CR No.350 of 2011 respondents is decreed for declaration to the effect that the sale deed in dispute dated 19.6.1963 would not effect their reversionary rights after the death of Surain Singh, defendant No.1 except to the extent of Rs.950/-. In the circumstances of this case the parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal.” 3. According to the plaintiff-respondents, Surain Singh died on 2.1.2005 and since reversionary rights after the death of Surain Singh have been conferred on the plaintiff-respondents, suit for possession was filed on 24.12.2007 wherein an application was filed on 9.3.2009 for depositing the amount of Rs.950/- in terms of aforesaid judgment and decree dated 10.5.1968. 4. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners submitted that the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff- respondents on 2.1.2005 and they could have deposited Rs.950/- in terms of decree dated 10.5.1968 within three years thereof. They have failed to do so. Present application filed on 9.3.2009 was time barred. According to the counsel, the trial court had erred in allowing the plaintiffs to deposit Rs.950/-. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondents besides controverting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the application was during the pendency of the suit which was filed on 24.12.2007. It was further submitted that the decree did not prescribe any specified time for depositing Rs.950/- and in such a situation, the 2 CR No.350 of 2011 plea of limitation could not come in the way of the plaintiffs in depositing the amount. He further urged that since the amount was deposited during the pendency of the suit itself, the same could not be held to be belated. 6. After giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the revision petition. 7. The appellate Court on 10.5.1968 while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for declaration held that the sale deed dated 19.6.1963 was not to affect the reversionary rights of the plaintiff-respondents after the death of Surain Singh except to the extent of Rs.950/-. The said decree did not provide for any specific period during which the amount of Rs.950/- was required to be paid. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for possession on 24.12.2007 after the death of Surain Singh and in terms of the decree dated 10.5.1968 had filed an application for complying with the said decree on 9.3.2009. Under the circumstances, the same cannot be held to be hit by laches or delay and would not confer any vested right in favour of the petitioners. 8. No ground for interference with the order passed by the trial court is made out warranting interference by this Court. 9. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. December 08, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3