VINOD K.SHARMA.J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 9.1.1992 passed by the learned Sr. Sub Judge, Rohtak, dismissing an application moved by the petitioner for extension of time to deposit the balance pre-emption amount of the land in question. The suit filed by the petitioner for a decree of possession by way of pre-emption was decreed on 11.8.1988.
(2.) THE plaintiff-petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 9214/-less than 1/5th of the pre-emption amount, which already stood deposited by him on or before 10.10.1988. It was stipulated in the decree that in case the plaintiff-petitioner failed to deposit the entire amount, the suit shall stand dismissed. The petitioner failed to deposit the entire amount. He deposited a sum of Rs. 9200/- and failed to deposit a sum of Rs. 14/-. Plaintiff- petitioner thus, prayed in the application that he may be allowed to deposit the amount of Rs. 14/- and delay in depositing the amount be condoned. The application has been declined by the learned Court by holding that in view of the fact that in the judgment and decree dated 11.8.1988, it was mentioned that in case, the plaintiff failed to deposit the amount within stipulated period, the suit would stand dismissed, thus as the entire amount had not been paid, the suit stood dismissed, therefore, the fate of the case could not be changed now by allowing the petitioner to deposit the amount.
(3.) MR . Rajbir Sherawat, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that the learned Court below has wrongly taken the application to be one for extension of time to deposit the decretal amount in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Rohtak. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the decree passed on 11.8.1988, the petitioner moved an application before the learned Court seeking deposit of the amount less 1/5th already deposited.;