IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1340 of 1980 (O&M) Date of decision:14.11.2011 Hazara Singh (deceased) through his LRs and another ...Appellants versus Lachhman Singh (deceased) through his LRs and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. ABS Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, and Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The matter has been brought before this Court giving an opportunity to the defendant in suit to adduce evidence. This came about when at the second appellate stage, the appellant claiming to be a representative of a mortgagor in the suit for redemption sought to produce a copy of the mortgage deed dated 20.02.1913. The document had been ordered to be received by the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowing the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27. The RSA No.1340 of 1980 (O&M) - 2 - Court also held that after the mortgage had been executed as claimed by the plaintiff, the suit filed on 30.12.1970 was within the time. However, having regard to the position that the defendant was denying the mortgage itself, it had given opportunity to the defendant to let in evidence. This order was passed on 06.05.2008 and the matter has come before this Court for disposal in accordance with law. 2. The case has been called after remand from the High Court on several occasions from 22.09.2008 onwards. At one stage on 24.03.2009, the appeal had been dismissed in default but later restored to file in CM No.4219 of 2009. The case has come up for hearing subsequent to 03.07.2009. On 27.08.2009, the Court adjourned the case sine die to await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue of limitation for suit for redemption of mortgage. The case has subsequently come up hearing on 08.11.2011. I do not find, there is any justification for keeping the case pending to await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and such a direction given already by this Court was also with due respect, not appropriate. The issue of limitation itself has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this very same case and the Court has held that the suit was within limitation. The only matter that would remain, would be to see whether the defendant has any evidence to be given in rebuttal of the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant predecessor had taken the property under mortgage. The RSA No.1340 of 1980 (O&M) - 3 - counsel for the respondent seeks for further time. I declined the request and would hold that the suit would require to be decreed and the appeal allowed, for, nothing more remains to be decided. If the defendant was not giving any evidence denying the mortgage or proving that the mortgage has stood discharged and the possession of the defendant was not as a mortgagee's qua the mortgage document but independently thereof. 3. The judgment of the lower appellate Court is set aside and the second appeal is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 14.11.2011 sanjeev