SOHAN SINGH Vs. JAWALA SINGH NATHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal arises in the following circumstances. Sadhu Singh son of Diwan Singh sold, as per registered Sale deed, dated August 5, 1966, 20 Kanals 133/4 Marlas of land which was his 1/4th share in an area of 82 Kanals 15 Marlas situated in village Talhan, tehsil and district Jullundur. The sale was in favour of Jawala Singh defendant-respondent 1 and for an ostensible consideration of Rupees 17067. 19. Sohan singh and Karnail Singh sons of Lachhman Singh son of Diwan Singh instituted a suit for pre-emption on August 1, 1967. Since the sale of land was out of a joint khata he impleaded other co-sharers. Banta Singh, Lachhman Singh, Tara Singh, Kewal Singh and Phuman Singh as pro forma defendants 3 to 7. Sadhu Singh, vendor was impleaded as defendant 2. Summonses for settlement of issues were directed to issue to the defendants for October 11, 1967. On payment of process fee. Lachhman Singh, Tara Singh and Phuman Singh defendants did not appear despite service and ex parte proceedings were taken against them on October 11, 1967. Jawala Singh, vendee appeared through his wife Smt. Kartar Kaur. The remaining three defendants including Sadhu Singh vendor had not been served. The plaintiff was ordered to give their correct addresses and also to deposit fresh process fee. The case was come up on November 29, 1967.

(2.) AS service had not been effected on some defendants summonses were again ordered to issue for January 5, 1968 on payment of process fee within three days. The case was adjourned to January 5, 1968. Defendants 2, 3 and 6 were again not served and fresh summonses were to issue for February 21, 1968 on payment of process fee and filing of the correct addresses. It appears that the plaintiff did not this time deposit the process fee within the prescribed time. The trial court on February 21, 1968, passed the following order:-

(3.) THE plaintiff took an appeal to the District Judge, Jullundur, who dismissed the same on October 29, 1968. He took the view that the suit was adjourned from time to time on account of the non-service of defendant-respondents and that since the plaintiff did not pay the process fee within the prescribed time as ordered on January 5, 1968, the suit had been rightly dismissed under Order 17, Rule 3. Civil Procedure code. The plaintiff has come to this court in second appeal.