GHANI BHAT Vs. YAGOOT FIRDOUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals are being decided by a common judgment. Appellant in all these appeals is the preemptor. He brought four different suits on the basis of right of prior purchase in respect of four different sale deeds against four different vendees. The trial court directed the appellant to deposit the 1/5th of the probable value of the suit property in cash under S.21 of the Right of Prior Purchase Act. This order was made in all the suits on 21-12-1984. The appellant, pre-emptor, however did not deposit the said amount. Instead he moved an application for permission to furnish security in lieu of 1/5 th of the probable value. This application was dismissed in all the suits. Thereupon the appellant seems to have taken a revision to the High Court. The High Court directed the trial Court to pass a reasoned order and remanded that case back to it after setting aside the order under revision. All the suits were later on transferred to the file of the District Judge.

(2.) The learned District Judge after giving the parties opportunity of placing their submissions before it, disallowed the application of the pre-emptor and made a direction for the making of the deposit in cash. One month's time was granted by the District Judge to the pre-emptor from the date of passing of the order of depositing the amount. The pre-emptor seems to have filed another revision before the High Court against the order of the District Judge rejecting his prayer to furnish security. The said revision was dismissed. While dismissing the revision the High Court seems to have made an observation at the Instance of the pre-emptor to the following effect :

(3.) The trial court decided the application of the pre-emptor for grant of extention of time in making the deposit as also the application of the vendees for rejection of the plaint by one order. The trial court held that the plaintiff has failed to make out any ground for extension of the time for depositing 1/5th of the probable value. Therefore his application was dismissed which entailed in the rejection of the plaints. In these appeals legality of the order of the trial court rejecting the plaint by refusing to extend time in making the deposit is impugned.