KUNDAN Vs. MUKANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners had filed a suit for possession by pre-emption of the land in suit and had been granted a decree. They had failed to deposit the balance of the pre-emption amount by the date mentioned for the purpose in the decree-sheet and the explanation put forth was that the petitioners had the impression that a later date had been fixed for the deposit of the amount which had accordingly been deposited by that date noted down by the petitioners under some misapprehension.

(2.) The question for the decision of the trial Court was whether the Presiding Officer or the officials of the Court had contributed in any manner to the petitioners' getting the wrong impression that the date of deposit of the pre-emption money was a fortnight later to the date given in the decree-sheet and if that was not so, whether the petitioners should be granted an extension of time for the deposit of the pre-emption amount. The trial Court came to the finding that the plea that the date had been noted down wrongly by the petitioners was false and that they had not been able to arrange the money by the date fixed by the trial Court and that the time for the deposit of the pre-emption amount could not be extended. The petitioners have challenged the correctness of that order in this civil revision.

(3.) The vendee-respondent filed an affidavit amount which they had deposited in the trial Court and that the pre-emption suit and the revision petition of the plaintiffs have become infructuous. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Jain, had been granted an adjournment to file a counter-affidavit. No such counter-affidavit is being filed and I can take it that the pre-emption amount has been withdrawn by the petitioners. No orders had been obtained from this Court for the withdrawal of the amount without prejudice to the pre-emption decree and it may appear that as the petitioners had offered to withdraw the pre-emption money, the trial Court chose not to stand in the way.