PHOLLU Vs. VIR BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decree holder is petitioner before this Court.

(2.) A decree for pre-emption dated November 16, 1981 was passed in his favour on the payment of Rs. 8,529/- as consideration proportionately worked out for an area measuring 6 Bighas 18 Biswas plus Rs. 852.90 as stamp charges, totalling Rs. 9381.90 less 1/5th pre-emption security already deposited by the plaintiff along with registration charges. The aforesaid money was to be deposited by the decree holders on or before December 15, 1981. It was also mentioned that in case of non-payment, the suit filed by the plaintiff was deemed to have been dismissed. The decree holder claimed that the pre-emptor was required to have been told to deposit the exact amount and that the amount should have been specifically fixed in the decree itself. It is claimed that the Ahlmad of the Court had made a report on the application that Rs. 7676.90 were not be deposited by the pre-emptor and that Ahlmad had not informed the plaintiff about the payment of registration charges. On that basis, the registration charges were to (not ?) deposited. It was claimed that the non- payment of registration charges was not intentional. Accordingly, a prayer was made for correction of the operative portion of the judgment and decree and consequently a permission of the plaintiff-decree holder to deposit the deficient amount was sought.

(3.) THE learned trial Court on the basis of the material available on the record, as well as taking into consideration the provisions of law, held that there was no error in the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. The amount specified in decree was rightly specified being the sale consideration as well as the stamp charges payable by the decree holder to the judgment debtor. However, the amount of registration charges payable by the decree holder for getting the conveyance deed in his favour was not required to be mentioned and as such had not been mentioned. Accordingly, the application filed by the plaintiff-decree holder was dismissed.