SHAM SINGH Vs. PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought by Sham Singh decree-holder in a pre-emption decree against an order of District Judge, B. D. Mehra, dated 30-4-1954, reversing the order of the trial Court and thus allowing the objections of the judgment-debtor.

(2.) Sham Singh obtained a decree for pre-emption and he had to pay the balance of the purchase-price on or before 22-5-1953. The evidence shows that at 10 O'clock on the morning of 22-5-1953, Sham Singh went to the Court, made an application for being allowed to pay the money but as the Presiding Officer of the Court was not there the order which was made was probably made by clerk. Sham Singh went to the treasury, filed the application and tendered the money for deposit. At about 12 O'clock he was told that it also required the signatures of the Presiding Officer and he took it to the Tahsilder who had been given the power to make such orders, but evidently this application was returned late and when he took the application and the money to the treasury he was told that the treasury had closed and the amount could not be accepted for deposit. Kewal Krishan Siahnawis A.W. 3 has gone so far as to depose that Sham Singh was shouting that money be taken otherwise his suit will stand dismissed. This fact is corroborated by the testimony of two other persons Chet Ram, Cashier, A. W. 2 and Amar Nath Naib Nazir, A. W. 3. It is also proved that he did show to these persons a bundle in which there was money in currency notes. Sham Singh has come into the witness-box and stated that he had Rs. 3,600/- with him although he did not get the money counted in the presence of these persons but the evidence does show that he told these persons that he had Rs. 3,600/- and he could not go back to his village lest he be looted on the way and that he was anxious to get the money deposited.

(3.) The learned District Judge has rightly observed that it was the duty of the decree-holder to get the money deposited in time, but he has also said that the decree-holder could have come a day earlier and that it had not been conclusively proved that Sham Singh had in fact Rs. 3,600/- not that he tendered the same either to the Treasury or to the Court.