JASA BAI Vs. UDEY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been moved by the plaintiff respondent/pre-emptor for extending the time for depositing the pre-emption amount.

(2.) THE facts :udey Singn, plaintiff respondent/pre empter (hereinafter the pre- emptor) filed a suit for possession by pre emption of the suit land. The suit was contested on numerous grounds. The trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated September 18, 1986. The same was affirmed in appeal by the first appellate Court vide his judgment and decree dated February 3, 1979. The first appellate Court directed the pre-emptor to deposit a sum of Rs. 5983. 25 (sale price) on April 30, 1979. The vendee-appellants, aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court challenged the same in this Court in R. S A. No. 690 of 1979. The appeal was admitted to hearing on May 12, 1979 and dispossession of the vendee-appellants (hereinafter the vendees) was stayed. The ad interim stay order was made absolute on July 13, 1979. Civil Misc. No. 2524-C of 1982 was moved by the preemptor for withdrawing the sale price. It was stated in the application that a sum of Ks. 5983-25 was deposited by the pre emptor as directed by the first appellate Court and the amount was lying in deposit with the Stats Bank of India, Sirsa. The vendees had obtained an order staying their dispossession from the suit land and he had been deprived of the possession and also of interest on the sale price A prayer was also made that the sale price deposited by the pre emptor, as directed by the first appellate Court, be allowed to be withdrawn and the same would be re-deposited as directed by this Court while disposing of the appeal. The application came up for hearing on October 5, 1982 and the same was disposed of observing thus :

(3.) THIS application has been moved by the pre emptor for extending time for re-depositing the sale price. It is stated therein that the regular second appeal was decided on February 24, 1992; that the application for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree was moved on February 25, 1992; that the judgment and decree was prepared on August 4, 1992 but was delivered to the applicant only on October 12, 1992; that the counsel sent the intimation to the applicant through letter dated February 24, 1992 followed by another letter dated August 4, 1992, but the same were not received by him. The applicant contacted the lawyer's Clerk on his own and got the information and a copy of the judgment was delivered to him on October 13, 1992. The applicant's counsel in the trial Court advised the applicant that the amount could not be deposited till the time was extended by this Court and it is in these circumstances that this application has been moved for extending the time. The application was moved in this Court on October i5, 1992 and the averments made therein are duly supported by the affidavit of the applicant. There is no rebuttal to these averments.