JIT SINGH Vs. RAM MURTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case in brief are as follows :-

(2.) It was contended by Mr. Tirath Singh Munjral, learned counsel for the appellants, that the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was liable to be dismissed as the direction made by the trial Court requiring the plaintiff to pay the pre-emption amount on or before 30th December, 1969, was not complied with and that the decree passed by the trial Court was legal and in accordance with the provisions of Order 20, rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, it was sought to be argued by Mr. R.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent, that the direction given by trial Court for the deposit of the pre-emption amount was not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Order 20, rule 14, that the plaintiff-respondent was not bound to comply with the decree, that the plaintiff was forced to file an appeal as the decree passed by the trial Court did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Order 20, rule 14, and that in these circumstances, the plaintiff was justified in not complying with the direction given in the decree of the trial Court and in paying the amount to the vendee on or before the date fixed by the appellate Court.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. The relevant provisions of rule 14 of Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read as under :-