NIRAJ JAIN Vs. DHAN VANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order of the trial Court dismissing as withdrawn, the suit of the plaintiff-pre-emptor with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action is patently erroneous and cannot, therefore, be sustained.

(2.) A reference to the material on record would show that February 9, 1989 was the last date for the deposit of 1/5th of the pre-emption money. No amount was deposited on that day and it is significant to note that no request even was made by the plaintiff for extension of time for its deposit, instead merely on the statement of the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit.

(3.) In dealing with this matter, it would be pertinent to note that in terms of the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 , if the plaintiff fails to pay 1/5th of the pre-emption amount, within the time fixed, the plaint has to be rejected. Next, as regards extension of time, for the deposit of such amount, the law is well settled, as laid down in Lilu v. Gokal Chand and others, 1977 PunLJ 386that is only reasons beyond the control of the plaintiff would justify such extension. Here, as mentioned earlier, there was not even a request for extension of time.