DALIP SINGH Vs. INDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Execution Second Appeal 947 of 1967 arises out of these circumstances.

(2.) Inder Singh plaintiff-respondent obtained a decree for possession by pre-emption of the land in suit, on 6.2.1967, wherein the decree-holder was directed to deposit the pre-emption money of Rs. 24,476/- to the credit of the vendee-defendant (less any amount already deposited by him) on or before '15.3.1967', failing which the suit would stand dismissed with costs.

(3.) On 6.3.1967, decree-holder made an application in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kaithal, seeking permission to deposit the pre-emption money of Rs. 19,876/-. It was stated in this application that according to the decree, the amount had to be deposited on or before 24.3.1967. The application was returned on 7.3.1967, with the remark that the applicant should give the particulars of the suit number, etc., in which the decree was passed. After complying with that objection, the decree-holder re-submitted that application on 8.3.1967. The application was returned to the decree-holder on 17.3.1967, with the endorsement that "Rs. 19,876/- be deposited at the applicant's own responsibility." The decree-holder consequently deposited the amount in the Treasury on 18.3.1967. On 24.4.1967, he sued out execution of the decree and prayed that he be delivered possession of the property. The stenographer of the Court, on 27.4.1967, reported to the Presiding Officer that the pre-emption amount had to be deposited according to the decree on or before 15.3.1967, while the deposit had been made several days thereafter. The execution application came up before the Subordinate Judge on 28.4.1967, who, in view of the office report, dismissed the execution. Against that order, the decree-holder went in appeal to the District Judge. The appeal was heard by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Karnal, who accepted it, with the direction that the date for depositing the pre-emption amount (in the decree) should be deemed to be '24.3.1967' instead of '15.3.1967'. He, therefore, directed restoration of the execution. Hence this second appeal by the vendee-defendant.