GHAMMO Vs. CHAHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for pre-emption brought by the appellant Shrimati Gammo, she obtained a compromise decree on 14th September, 1965, on payment of Rs. 1137/8/-, which she was required to deposit before 31st October, 1965. Unfortunately, the appellant deposited only Rs. 1137.40 P instead of the full decretal amount of Rs. 1135.50 P, being the equivalent of Rs. 1137/8/, by the date fixed under the decree. Before the appellant could take possession, the judgement filed objections under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code that the full decretal amount having not been deposited the plaintiff-appellant's suit stood dismissed in terms of the decree, and she thus not entitled to the possession of the land to which the decree related. Finding that the amount deposited by the appellant was short of the decretal amount fixed under the decree by 10 N.P., the learned Subordinate Judge accepted the judgment-debtor's objections and by his order, dated 6th April, 1966, directed that because of the non-compliance of the provisions of Order 20, Rule 14(1)(b), which are mandatory, the suit be deemed to have been dismissed.

(2.) In appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, it was urged on behalf of the decree-holder that she was not to be blamed for the default in not making the full deposit of the decretal amount (Rs. 1137.50 N.P.) as the Court itself had directed her to deposit Rs. 1137.40 N.P. Such a bald assertion was made in the execution Court as well, but no evidence was led to prove that the appellant was misled by any order or direction of the Court in making the short deposit or that the mistake was of a Court Official or even that the Court had in any way contributed to the default. The learned Additional District Judge, accordingly, refused to accept the bare assertion made only in the reply to the objection application of the judgment-debtor, and not even on oath and without the decree-holder having come into the witness-box. Accordingly, he held that there was no mistake on the part of the Court of which the appellant could take advantage and rejecting her contention observed as follows :-

(3.) Aggrieved by this order of the Appellate Court, dated 24th November, 1965, Shrimati Gammo has come up in second appeal to this Court.