- (1.) This is a rule to challenge the order of the Subordinate Judge, Kapurthala granting extension of time for paying in Court the sum which is acquired to be deposited in a pre-emption suit.
(2.) The respondent Pran Nath brought a suit for pre-emption of agricultural land which had been sold by his uncle to the petitioners, Karnail Singh and others. The suit for pre-emption was filed by the plaintiff-respondent on 10th of April, 1962, on which date it was transferred to the Court of Shri Asa Singh Gill. The Subordinate Judge, in the presence of the counsel for the plaintiff, Shri Des Raj Advocate, passed the following order which may be reproduced in full :- "Present : Shri Des Raj Advocate for the plaintiff. The suit be registered. The defendants be summoned for 1st May, 1962. The plaintiff to deposit Rs. 1,367/- as one-fifth of the sale price on or before the date fixed." The deposit was not made on 1st of May, 1962 and indeed on the many subsequent hearings. On 10th of October, 1962, before the issues were framed the two counsel appearing for the plaintiff, Messrs Tek Chand and Des Raj, filed affidavits that they had come to know that an order had been passed for the deposit of Rs. 1,367/- by 1st of May, 1962. As a presence of Shri Des Raj alone is noted in the order of 10th April, 1962, the contents of his affidavit may be briefly noted. In paragraph 1 of the document, it is stated that he came to know on 10th October, 1962, that the order for deposit of one-fifth of the purchase price was passed by the Court. It was further stated by the counsel in his affidavit that the order of deposit "was never conveyed to me by the Court and it was not passed in my presence". An application was accordingly made for extension of time to make the deposit.
(3.) Under Section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, in every suit for pre-emption the Court shall, at, or, at any time before the settlement of issues, require the plaintiff to deposit in Court such sum as does not, in the opinion of the Court, exceed one-fifth of the probable value of the land or property, within such time as the Court may fix in such order". Sub-section [4] of Section 22 says that "if the plaintiff fails within the time fixed by the Court or within such further time as the Court may allow to make the deposit or furnish in security .......his plaint shall be rejected..........". The learned Judge in the impugned order made no attempt to justify the grant of extension of time on the assertions made by the counsel in his affidavit, but observed that the lawyer may have been inattentive to the order when it was pronounced the Court was influenced mainly by the consideration that the litigant should not be permitted to suffer for the negligence of the counsel.;