HET RAM Vs. RAJINDER PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will also dispose of Civil Revision Petition No. 1961 of 1979, as the question involved are common in both the cases.

(2.) BOTH the Petitioners Het Ram and Hari Singh being tenants on the suit land obtained decrees for possession by pre -emption, dated September 26, 1974, in two separate suits. In the case of Het Ram, the pre -emption suit was decreed on payment of Rs. 2,101/ - whereas the pre -emption suit of Hari Singh was decreed on payment of Rs. 3,56750 In the former suit, Rs 380/ were deposited as the one -fifth pre -emption money whereas in the latter suit Rs. 642/ - were deposited as zare panjim. The pre -emption amounts were to be deposited by the decree holders on or before October 31, 1974, in both the cases. On October 3, 1974, a sum of Rs. 1,631/ - was deposited in the case of Het Ram whereas a sum of Rs. 2923.00 was deposited in the case of Hari Singh. There is a report in both the cases dated October 8, 1974 made by the Ahlmad of the Court that the amounts which were to be deposited by October 31, 1974, had been deposited and that the execution proceedings were within two years. On this report, the Court passed the orders the same day, in both the cases, as follows: -

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the amounts were rightly deposited by the decree holders and even the Ahlmad of the Court had made the report dated October 8, 1974, in that behalf. On that account, the warrants of possession were issued and the decree -holder got the possession as well. According to the learned Counsel, it appears that there was some interpolation in the report of the Ahlmad and that being so, the decretal amounts were found short by Rs. 90/ - in the former suit and Rs. 1.70 in the latter suit. According to the learned Counsel, if this mistake would have been pointed out at that time, there was time with the decree -holders to deposit that alleged short amounts also within time. As no such mistake was pointed out by the Ahlmad of the Court, the decree -holders could not be allowed to suffer on that account. Moreover, there could not be any question of mala fides for not depositing the requisite amounts earlier; particularly when the decree holders could deposit the amounts well in time, the question of deposit of Rs. 90/ - and 1 70, respectively was not very material. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Sher Singh v. Puran (, 1985 88 P. L. R. 438., Manohar Singh v. Amar Singh, 1985 P. L. J. 364., and Jogdhavan v. Babu Ram : A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 57.