L.N Mittal, J. (Oral)
By filing the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, plaintiffs have challenged order dated 22.9.2011 Annexure P/3 passed by the trial court thereby dismissing application Annexure P/1 moved by the plaintiffs for adjourning the suit sine die.
Plaintiffs have filed suit seeking declaration that they as mortgagees have become owners of the mortgaged land in suit due to efflux of time on account of non-redemption of the mortgage.
Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan v. Sheo Ram, 2008 (1) PLR 1 has held that usufructuary mortgagee does not acquire ownership right over the mortgaged land merely by efflux of time.
In application Annexure P/1, the plaintiffs alleged that the aforesaid question of law stands referred by Hon'ble Supreme Court to a larger Bench and is pending there. Plaintiffs sought sine die adjournment of the suit till decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the said law point.
Contesting defendants by filing reply Annexure P2 opposed the aforesaid application.
The trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/3 has dismissed application Annexure P/1 moved by the plaintiffs who have, therefore, filed this revision petition to challenge the said order.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the parties reiterated their respective versions.
I have carefully considered the matter. Merely because some question of law has been referred by Hon'ble Supreme Court to a larger Bench and is pending there is no ground for adjourning pending cases sine die. For the time being, ratio of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan (supra) holds the field. All the courts subordinate to this Court are bound to follow the same. Trial court has, therefore, rightly dismissed the application of the plaintiffs for adjourning the suit sine die on account of pendency of the aforesaid law point before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed.