JANGIR SINGH Vs. HARMEL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition for revision was admitted to a Division Bench because in Dalip Singh v. Hardev Singh, (1969) 71 PLR 61, a doubt was cast on the decision in Suraj Parkash v. Smt. Nina Rani Aggarwal, (1967) 69 Pun LR 642.

(2.) HAZUR Singh sold the land in dispute to Jangir Singh and others. This sale was pre-empted by Harmel Singh. He claimed possession by pre-emption on the ground that he was the son of the vendor. When the suit was registered, the trial Court ordered the plaintiff to deposit one-fifth of the probable value of the land, namely, Rs. 1352/- on or before the 11th August, 1969. On the 24th of July, 1969, the plaintiff applied to the Court that he may be permitted to give security instead. The Court allowed the application and instead of passing an order as prayed, directed that a sum of Rs. 700/- in cash be deposited and security to the extent of Rs. 6060/- be furnished. This order was passed on the 25th of July, 1969. It is this order which has been called in question in the present petition for revision.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this order is illegal and without jurisdiction. The argument is that Section 22 (1) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) allows two alternatives. The Court can pass an order enforcing one or the other alternative. It cannot enforce both the alternatives either wholly or in parts. In other words, a composite order demanding cash deposit and security cannot be passed. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that such an order is not an invalid order. His argument is that keeping in view the scheme of the provision and its object it is open to a Court to pass a composite order. It is the validity of these respective contentions which falls for determination.