KULDIP SINGH Vs. ANOKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, in an application filed by Kuldip Singh under Order 47, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, for a modification of the decree passed earlier by the same Court on June 22, 1972.

(2.) The facts may be stated, briefly, and the same are not disputed. A suit for possession by pre-emption in regard to the sale of 93 kanals 8 marlas of land situated in village Maluka, was filed by Kuldip Singh petitioner against Bihari Lal and others respondents which suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge, Second Class, Phul, on August 30, 1971, on the condition that the plaintiff-petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 55,000/- to the opposite party minus the amount, if any, deposited by him as one-fifth of the pre-emption money upto October 27, 1971. The last-mentioned date is very material. The learned Subordinate Judge further ordered that failing the said deposit, the suit of the plaintiff-would be deemed to have been dismissed. Against this judgment and decree of the lower Court, the opposite party went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Barnala. In fact, Kuldip Singh petitioner also filed a separate appeal impugning the consideration amount to the extent of Rs. 4,000/- which was claimed to be fictitious. Both these appeals were heard by the Additional District Judge, Barnala, and were dismissed on June 22, 1972. It transpires that while dismissing the appeals, the learned Additional District Judge did not fix any fresh date for the deposit of the pre-emption money, the date fixed earlier, i.e., October 27, 1971 having already lapsed before the decision of the appeals.

(3.) In view of this lacuna, the present petitioner moved an application before the Additional District Judge praying that that judgment and decree may be modified to this extent that a fresh date may be prescribed for depositing the pre-emption money, otherwise the petitioner could not take benefit of the decision in his favour. This application was opposed by the opposite side solely on the ground that the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge was in favour of the petitioner and he was, therefore, not entitled to file any application for review against the same. Strangely enough, the learned Additional District Judge also agreed to this objection by holding that Review Application could be considered only if the same was filed by a person who was "aggrieved" by the decree or order. He failed to appreciate that the petitioner was certainly aggrieved, though technically the decree was in his favour, his grievance being that no fresh date for the deposit of the pre-emption money had been fixed and he could not take benefit of the decree. Be that as it may, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the Review Application and this is how the said order is under challenge in the present Revision petition.