MANGAT RAM Vs. BHAGWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal the short questions involved are whether the learned trial Court exercised the discretion vested in it under Section 22(4) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (for short 'the Act') while extending time for deposit Zare Panjem and whether the learned lower appellate Court was competent to interfere with that discretion.

(2.) The brief facts are that the present appellants had filed a suit for possession of the suit land by way of Pre-emption. Vide order dated 13th December, 1973, the trial Court asked the plaintiffs to deposit Rs. 3400/- as Zare Panjem on or before 18th January, 1974. The suit was fixed for hearing on 19th January, 1974. Before depositing that amount, the plaintiffs got the treasury challan passed from the Court on 16th January, 1974 and from the treasury officer, on 17th January, 1974. However, the amount was not deposited in the Bank till 19th January, 1974. After depositing the amount, the plaintiffs filed an application through Mangat Ram, of the plaintiffs, that on the previous day i.e. 18th January, 1974 the applicant reached the Court late as he was not well and by the time, he reached the bank and thus Zare Panjem could not be deposited on that day and had been deposited on 19th January, 1974 and the time for deposit of Zare Panjem be extended upto that date. The learned trial Court upheld the contention of the plaintiff Mangat Ram that he had reached late in the bank on 18th January, 1974. The reasons for upholding that plea given by the Court were that the challan was got passed from the Court on 16th January, 1974 and from the Treasury Officer, on 17th January, 1974 and, therefore, it was clear that the plaintiffs had been making efforts to deposit the amount even prior to the date fixed for depositing the amount and thus there was a good cause for extending the time. Accordingly it extended time for deposit of Zare Panjem upto 19th January, 1974, on which date that amount had been deposited. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit for Pre-emption on payment of Rs. 18,882/- and ordered them to deposit the amount on or before 10th November, 1975.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the vendee-defendants filed appeal which was heard by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge (with enhanced appellate powers), Bhiwani. Before him only the propriety of the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court in extending the period for deposit of the Zare Panjem was challenged. The learned appellate Court held that the plaintiffs had misled the trial Court in obtaining extension of time by mis-representation of facts and, thus, the discretion exercised by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs deserved to be set aside. Accordingly, he set aside the order of the learned trial Court dated 23rd December, 1974, accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree and rejected the plaint in view of Section 22(4) of the Act. The plaintiffs have now come to this Court in second appeal.