RATTAN SINGH Vs. BHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decree for possession by way of pre-emption of the land in dispute was passed in favour of the appellant on December 1, 1971 on the condition that the pre-emption money shall be deposited on or before May 15, 1972. The decree-holder got the challan signed by the Presiding Officer on May 10, 1972. It has been stated on oath by the decree-holder that the challan after signature by the Assistant Treasury Officer was handed over to him at 1.45 P.M. whereafter, he presented the same in the State Bank of India but it refused to accept the deposit as the time for doing so had passed which was upto 1.30 P.M. The amount was actually deposited in the Bank on the next day. Thereafter, the decree-holder instituted the execution proceedings for securing possession of the land in dispute which was opposed by the judgment-debtors who contended that the suit stands dismissed as the amount was not deposited within the time prescribed by the decree. The executing Court upheld the objection and dismissed the application. The judgment and order of the trial Court was confirmed on appeal by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Jullundur vide judgment dated September 5, 1975. Still dissatisfied, the decree-holder has came up in this second appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the amount could not be deposited in the treasury on May 15, 1972 because of no fault of the decree-holder and in the circumstances stated above, he has complied with the direction given in the decree regarding the deposit of the amount. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on two decisions of this Court in Dalawar Singh and others v. Sawan Singh (deceased) represented by Legal Representatives, 1973 PunLJ 348 and Sham Singh v. Pal Singh, 1955 AIR(P&H) 140 In both these decisions the decree-holder came on the last date to make the deposit but could not do so in the treasury within the time prescribed. Thereafter, he approached the Presiding Officer to tender the money in the Court but as the Presiding Officer was on leave he could not do so. In the present case also the Presiding Officer was on leave on May 15, 1972 and the decree-holder alleged that he could not tender the amount in the Court because of that reason although he had money with him on the said date. No evidence was led in rebuttal by the judgment-debtors to say that the decree-holder had no money with him on May 15, 1972. The case of the appellant, therefore, squarely falls within the rule laid down in the said decisions.

(3.) Consequently this appeal is allowed, the judgment of the lower appellate Court set aside and the case sent back to the executing Court for further proceedings in accordance with law.