Shrimathi Sushila Devi and Others vs Parshotam Ram and Others

D.B. Lal, J.—This is an application u/s 152 of the CPC for causing amendments in the judgments of the District Judge as well as of the High Court and the application arises in the following circumstances.

Parshotam and Lachhman claimed to be tenants of 37-14-12 bighas of land comprising in Khasra numbers, inter alia 57, situate in village Chhipnu, Tehsil Sadar of the District of Mandi. The landowner was one Ravi Singh who has since died and his legal representatives have been brought on the record. The application was made by Parshotam Ram and Lachhman u/s 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act for acquisition of properietary rights in the said area of land comprising in the aforesaid Khasra numbers. The learned Compensation Officer before whom the proceeding was initiated, granted proprietary rights to the tenants in respect of other Khasra numbers except Khasra No. 57 which according to the learned Counsel is of 6-7-6 bighas. Thus the area was reduced to this extent from 37-14-12 bighas of land. This is so clear from the order of the Compensation Officer. Against that order the landowner came in appeal before the District Judge but his appeal was dismissed and the decision of the learned Compensation Officer was confirmed. Thereafter a second miscellaneous appeal (M.S.A. No. 54 of 1967) was filed before the Delhi High Court of which a Bench used to sit at Simla. When the second appeal was listed before a learned single Judge of that Court, it was observed in the judgment that the tenant-Respondents claimed proprietorship for 37-14-12 bighas which according to the present Petitioner-landowner was an incorrect statement because the said area was reduced by 6-7-6 bighas. The learned Counsel submitted that the mistake crept in, in the judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court, because of a similar wrong statement made in the judgment of the learned District Judge. Accordingly the present application was filed by the landowner for correction of both the judgments u/s 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

A preliminary objection is raised by the Respondents that unless an order of transfer is obtained by the Petitioner from the learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi under the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh will have no jurisdiction over the matter. In my opinion the preliminary objection is entirely sustainable and must be upheld.

The application u/s 152 of the CPC decidedly seeks a relief in respect of the order passed by the High Court of Delhi. The learned Counsel stressed that the expression "order" will not include the Judgment passed by the learned single Judge. I do not subscribe to this meaning because the judgment of the learned single Judge did contain the order dismissing the miscellaneous second appeal and confirming the decision of he Compensation Officer and of the District Judge. The present petition u/s 152 of the CPC decidedly seeks a relief in respect of the order contained in that judgment. It is then contended that the High Court of Delhi must be seized of any proceeding and that proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the Act will only apply to a pending proceeding before the High Court of Delhi. The argument is again devoid of any merit. The petition u/s 152 of the CPC should have been moved before the High Court of Delhi and only thereafter a prayer could be made to the learned Chief Justice, that considering the special circumstances made out, the petition should be transferred to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Unless such a specific order of transfer is obtained under the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 30, I do not think any jurisdiction is conferred upon this High Court to entertain the petition.

The learned Counsel then contended that the petition u/s 152 of the CPC cannot be considered to be a proceeding as contemplated in Sub-section (3) of Section 30. This is again a misplaced argument because in my opinion a petition of like nature is nevertheless a proceeding seeking a relief in respect of an order passed by the High Court of Delhi.

With these observations, the preliminary objection prevails and unless an order of transfer is obtained from the learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi the present petition u/s 152 of the CPC will not be entertainable by this High Court.

The petition is, therefore, to be returned for presentation before proper Court.