Case Note & Summary
The case involved a dispute over preemption rights under the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913. The appellant, Vijay Singh, a cosharer, filed a suit for possession by preemption against respondent Shanti Devi, who had purchased land from another cosharer. The trial court proceeded ex parte against the respondent and passed an ex parte decree on 10th April 1990, pursuant to which the appellant took possession. The respondent then applied under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree, which was initially dismissed but later allowed by the appellate court on 28th August 1998. During the pendency of the appeal, the State of Haryana amended Section 15 of the 1913 Act, removing the right of preemption for cosharers. The appellant's revision against the appellate order was dismissed by the High Court. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether an ex parte decree that is later set aside can be considered a decree of the court of first instance for the purposes of a preemption suit. The arguments, court's analysis, and final decision are not included in the provided text, which ends before the reasoning portion.
Issue of Consideration
Whether, in a suit for preemption, an ex parte decree which is later set aside, can be termed to be the decree of the court of first instance
Law Points
- preemption rights
- ex parte decree
- setting aside decree
- decree of court of first instance
- Punjab Preemption Act
- 1913
Case Details
2017 LawText (SC) (09) 110
Civil Appeal No. 2062 of 2009
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for preemption
Remedy Sought
Possession of suit land by way of preemption
Filing Reason
Appellant claimed preemption right as a cosharer after the land was sold by another cosharer to a third party.
Previous Decisions
Trial court passed ex parte decree; trial court dismissed application to set aside ex parte decree; appellate court set aside ex parte decree; High Court dismissed revision against appellate order.
Issues
Whether an ex parte decree which is later set aside can be termed to be the decree of the court of first instance in a preemption suit.
Judgment Excerpts
“Whether, in a suit for preemption, an ex parte decree which is later set aside, can be termed to be the decree of the court of first instance” is the question which arises for decision in this appeal.
The net effect of this amendment was that the amendment took away the right of preemption of a cosharer and the right of preemption was only retained with a tenant.
Procedural History
On 6th November 1989, appellant filed suit for preemption. Respondent was proceeded ex parte on 6th April 1990. Ex parte decree passed on 10th April 1990. Appellant took possession on 7th June 1990. Same day, respondent filed application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside ex parte decree. Trial court dismissed application on 4th October 1993. State of Haryana amended Section 15 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913 on 17th May 1995, removing preemption right of cosharers. Appellate court allowed respondent's appeal and set aside ex parte decree on 28th August 1998. High Court dismissed appellant's civil revision on 5th November 1999. Matter then came to Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Punjab Preemption Act, 1913: Section 15
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order IX Rule 13
