KUNDAN Vs. RAM KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal against the pre-emption decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed on appeal by the learned District Judge, Rohtak, vide judgment dated the 2nd April, 1969 the only ground urged is that the Courts below had acted illegally in extending the time for the deposit of one-fifth of the sale money. The arguments raised in support of this ground are that there were no sufficient reasons for extension of time; that it was an order of condonation of delay rather than the extension of time and that the one fifth amount deposited was not of the sale consideration as mentioned in the registered deed but of an amount alleged to be the sale consideration by the plaintiffs. None of these grounds, in my view, has any substance. In second appeal it is not open to me to go into the question of sufficiency of the reasons. The discretion exercised by the two Courts below can be interfered with only either when no reasons are given or the reasons given are extraneous to the matter involved. The lower Appellate Court after taking into consideration the various circumstances has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs could not be blamed for not making deposit within the time allowed and that the same could not be done because the Presiding Officer remained on leave for four days and thereafter the Ahlmad did not secure orders within the time fixed for the deposit of the amount.

(2.) As regards the second contention, the Court below found that the trial Court had not specifically mentioned in the order as to what amount was to be deposited. In the absence of such direction, which the Court was bound to give in law, the plaintiffs were said to have been misled and relying on Nihal Singh v. Ram Chander, 1953 AIR(Pepsu) it was held that the plaintiffs could not be penalised on that score. I have no reason to take a different view. The last contention need only be noticed for being rejected. When the delay in the deposit is condoned, it is nothing but an extension of time. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.