Hari Singh Represented By Lrs vs Charanji (Died Issue-Less) And … on 9 July, 2009

RSA No.2471 of 2008 (O&M)                         -1-


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH.


                                 RSA No.2471 of 2008 (O&M)
                                 Date of Decision: 09.07.2009


Hari Singh represented by LRs
                                                               ...Appellants

                                  VERSUS

Charanji (died issue-less) and others
                                                              ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

Present:     Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate
             for the appellants.

                          ***

AJAY TEWARI J.

This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the

courts below rejecting the claim of the appellant for exercising preferential

right to purchase the property held by Charanji. Learned Lower Appellate

Court decided the case on the basis that Charanji having died, whatever

preferential right which the appellant has had against him would also come

to an end. Learned counsel for the appellant has proposed following

substantial questions of law:-

i. Whether the trial court can decide the controversy

beyond the order of remand of the superior court?

ii. Whether the admitted facts need be proved?

iii.Whether all the relevant submissions of the appellants

are required to be noted in the order of the Court?

iv.Whether the review application is maintainable, when
RSA No.2471 of 2008 (O&M) -2-

some of the contentions have not been recorded by the

Court?

v. Whether the application for condonation of delay can be

dismissed despite the plausible reasons and the delay of

each and every day has been explained?

vi.Whether the successors in interest are also entitled to

the same relief, which the predecessor in interest had?

As regards questions No.1 and 6, I find that in paragraph 25 of

the judgment learned Lower Appellate Court had considered this aspect and

has held that even if the trial court exceeded his jurisdiction, yet with the

death of Charanji whatever preferential right which the appellant had

against him would also come to an end.

As far as remaining questions are concerned, the same pale into

significance, in view of the decision taken on the above mentioned

questions No.1 and 6. I find that the decision of learned Lower Appellate

Court with regard to the coming to end of the preferential right after the

death of Charanji cannot be faulted in the facts of this case.

Consequently holding questions No.1 and 6 against the

appellant, this appeal is dismissed.

No costs.

As the main case since has been disposed of therefore all the

pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of.

                                                    ( AJAY TEWARI )
July 09, 2009                                            JUDGE
ashish