RAMESHWAR Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, dated December 22, 1984, affirming the order of the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Karnal, dated August 29, 1984 rejecting the plaint of the plaintiffs-appellants under section 22(4) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act on the appellants' having failed to deposit the one-fifth of the pre-emption money within the time fixed by the trial Court.

(2.) Rameshwar alias Ishwar and others plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption/re-sale of 44 Kanals of land by Ram Sarup son of Mool Raj, the original owner in favour of Joginder Singh, Kuldip Singh, Sucha Singh and Karam Singh vendees-defendants (respondent Nos. 1 to 4) for a consideration of Rs. 1,18,125/- vide sale-deed dated June 22, 1983, registered on July 6, 1983. The suit was presented before the Senior Subordinate Judge, Karnal, on July 16, 1984, who assigned the same to the Court of Shri Manjit Singh, Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Karnal. After office report, the suit was taken up by the learned Subordinate Judge on July 18, 1984. By an order of the same date he directed the issuance of process to the defendants for August 29, 1984, on filing of process-fee etc. and also required the plaintiffs-appellants to deposit the one-fifth of the pre-emption money of Rs. 23,625/- on or before August 28, 1984. The case was taken up by the learned Subordinate Judge on August 29, 1984, in the presence of Shri Mohinderjit Singh, counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants and on finding that one-fifth of the pre-emption money, as ordered, was not deposited by August 28, 1984, the learned trial Court passed the following order :

(3.) The plaintiffs-appellants through their counsel Shri Mohinderjit Singh, Advocate filed an appeal against the above order of rejection of their plaint which was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. It was pleaded before the learned Additional District Judge that in fact on July 18, 1984, the case was adjourned to September 29, 1984, and one-fifth of pre-emption money was ordered to be deposited by September 28, 1984; that these dates were duly written in the diary of the counsel; that the clerk of the counsel for the appellant gave a chit for the said date to the plaintiff-appellants; that on August 29, 1984, the learned counsel for the appellants was incidentally present in the Court of Shri Manjit Singh Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Karnal, and was arguing the case titled 'Bhajan Singh v. Gurbax Singh', that it was pointed out to him by the Reader of the Court that the instant case was also fixed for August 29, 1984, and that the Zare Panjam (one-fifth of the pre-emption money) was to be deposited on or before August 28, 1984; that the counsel for the appellants requested the Court for an adjournment to verify the date, but the learned trial Court refused to adjourn the case and rejected the plaint; that the counsel for the appellants sent a letter through Shri Baljit Singh, Advocate, junior to Shri S.P. Chopra, Advocate, who lived in the village of the appellants informing the appellants to come to the Court immediately; that the appellants reached the Court on August 30, 1984, and it was discovered that actually the case was fixed for August 28, 1984/August 29, 1984, instead of September 28/29, 1984; that this mistake in nothing the date was inadvertent; that the appellants were ready with the pre-emption money with them and they had kept the entire money with one Dharam Chand, Commission Agent of Ladwa; that they were directed by their counsel to deposit the said amount 2/3 days before September 28, 1984, that the appellants were still ready with the amount and were prepared to deposit the same even on the date the appeal was filed; and that the mistake was not due to the fault of the appellants, but due to the wrong nothing of the date by the counsel or by the Court officials. None of the above contentions prevailed with the learned Additional District Judge, who, as stated above, dismissed the appeal. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellants have filed the present second appeal in this Court.