Naguba Appa vs Namdev

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Not extracted

Decision Date: 20 November, 1950

Coram: Mahajan, J.

In this matter, the trial court issued a decree granting the plaintiff a right of pre-emption over the disputed property and directed the plaintiff to deposit the purchase price within two months of the decree’s date. An appeal was subsequently filed against that decree, but the appellant later withdrew the appeal. The plaintiff failed to make the required deposit within the two-month period prescribed by the decree. After the lapse of the time limit, the plaintiff applied to the court for permission to make the deposit, without revealing that the deadline had already passed. The court granted that application. Upon learning of the plaintiff’s failure to deposit on time, the defendant moved before the court, contending that the plaintiff’s suit should be dismissed because of the missed deadline and that the plaintiff therefore lacked any entitlement to enforce the decree. The trial judge agreed with the defendant, holding that because the pre-emption money had not been paid within the time fixed, the suit stood dismissed. The plaintiff appealed this decision; the appellate court set aside the trial judge’s order, but a subsequent appeal reversed that outcome and restored the dismissal, holding that the suit was dismissed pursuant to Order 20, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code. Dissatisfied, the plaintiff appealed to the Judicial Committee of the State, and the matter now came before the Supreme Court under Article 374(4) of the Constitution.

The appellant argued that because an appeal had been filed against the trial court’s decree in the pre-emption suit, the plaintiff was justified in not depositing the amount within the time fixed by the decree. The Court observed that the mere filing of an appeal does not suspend the operation of the original decree; unless the appellate court expressly modifies the decree, the plaintiff remains bound to comply with its directions. Accordingly, the Court affirmed that the High Court was correct in concluding that the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed due to his failure to deposit the pre-emption price within the prescribed time. The appellant further contended that the trial judge’s decree did not contain an explicit clause stating that the suit would be dismissed if the deposit was not made within the allotted time, and therefore the decree was not in conformity with Order 20, Rule 14. The Court rejected this contention, explaining that the dismissal arose automatically from the mandatory provisions of Order 20, Rule 14, and not from any specific judicial pronouncement. Consequently, any omission of such a clause in the decree could not affect the parties’ rights. For these reasons, the Court held that the appeal was untenable and dismissed it, ordering the appellant to pay costs.