(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 2134 to 2136 of 1983, as common question of law arises, therein.
(2.) Three sets of different vendors sold their agricultural land by three different sale deeds dated 28th May, 1980 in favour of one set of 15 vendees. On 23rd May, 1981 three separate suits for pre-emption were filed by the near relations who were entitled to pre-empt the sale on account of relationship. The name of one of the vendee-defendants was mentioned as Sunder Singh son of Gurbachan Singh in all the three suits. Sunder Singh was arrayed as defendant No. 10. On 16th October, 1981 defendant No. 8 only filed written statements in all the three suits and took up vague pleas of mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties and suit being for partial pre-emption. The remaining vendee other than defendants Nos. 8 and 10 filed separate written statements on 30th July, 1982. In that written statement, the following specific objections were raised in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the additional objections of the written statement :-
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the Court below has not committed any illegality or irregularity which may call for interference in the revisional jurisdiction. The pre-emptors' cases have to be considered at slightly different plank vis-a-vis all other litigations. Even a minor has not been permitted to claim benefit of his minority in filing the pre-emption suits. See Section 8 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It has been ruled by the Supreme Court that a pre-emption suit can be defeated by all legitimate means. Although right of pre-emption is a statutory right but it has been considered to be practical right. In this background the matter has to be strictly construed against the pre-emptor. He has to be vigilant and if does not prove his bona fide, no indulgence would be shown to him. Present case is one where the application is neither bona fide nor the plaintiff has shown vigilance at the proper stage.