The High Court fell in grave error in holding that the suit was barred by time, and ignored to appreciate that the right of the appellants to have the revenue record corrected arose when the appellants came to know about the wrong entry and the respondents failed to join the appellants in getting it corrected. The High Court was not justified in holding that mere existence of a wrong entry in the revenue records does not, in law, gave rise to a cause of action within the meaning of Article 58 of the schedule of the Act. The impugned judgment of the High Court on the question that the suit was barred by limitation cannot be sustained. Therefore, the judgment of the High court is set aside and the matter remitted back to it for decision on merits expeditiously. Next appeal is directed against the final judgment and order of a learned Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing a second appeal being Regular Second Appeal No. 22 of 1995, inter alia, on the ground that the suit for declaration and injunction filed on 21st of August, 1988 was barred. The plaintiff and the appellants were the owners and in joint possession of share in the entire land measuring about 280 Kanals and 8 Marlas of Khewat No. 31 Khatoni no. 84 situated in village Ramnagar under Panchkula. The appellants and the two individuals were co-owners in the said total land. Since the appellants and the two individuals were co-owners in the said land, the said share of the land was already under mortgage with the respondents. In 1965, the respondents got their names mutated in the relevant record of rights as owners of the area purchased by them as indicated in the aforesaid sale deed. The appellants filed a pre-emption suit being pre-emption suit no. 37 of 1960 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Class-11, Panchkula against the respondents for possession of 2/3rd share sold to them and got it decreed in their favor by the trial court by a judgment and decree dated 30th of November, 1967. The respondents appealed against the aforesaid decision before the Appellate Court, namely, District Judge, Panchkula who dismissed their appeal. Feeling aggrieved against the judgments of the courts, a second appeal was filed. Subsequent to the dismissal of the record appeal, the appellants and the respondents compromised their dispute and such compromise was reduced into writing. According to the written compromise, the appellants were entitled to retain half of the 2/3rd share of the land in dispute and the respondents were to retain the other half. The respondents admitted in their compromise deed that the appellants had taken possession of their share of land. When this compromise was presented before the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Letters Patent Appeal which came to be registered, the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the said Letters Patent Appeal in terms of the said compromise petition. Leaving aside the other facts in the present case, we may state here that a specific defence taken by the respondents in their written statement was to the effect that the suit was barred by limitation in view of Article 58 of the Act because the suit having been filed after about 18 years of entering into the compromise by the parties in the High Court in the Letters Patent Appeal, must be filed within three years from the date of entering into the alleged compromise by the parties. Accordingly, the respondents alleged that the suit must be dismissed on the ground of limitation. We make it clear that since the only question involved in this appeal is relating to the question of limitation, we have not considered the other aspects of the matter in this judgment. After the parties had entered appearance and led evidence in support of their respective cases also on the point of limitation, the trial court held, inter alia, that the suit was barred by limitation in view of Article 58 of the Act as the cause of action arose in 1972. The High Court has not exercised the caution that was expected to while dealing with the judgment of acquittal by the trial court. High Court was not justified in interfering with the well considered judgment of the trial court. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. The appellant is allowed to go in appeal to the higher court if he is not satisfied with the judgment of this Court. Leave is granted to pursue the matter in any Court for final decision. (800)
