- (1.) TWO questions call for decision in this Execution Second Appeal, namely : (I) Whether strictly literal compliance with the order of the Court passed under Order 20, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure is necessary to entitle a decree-holder to reap the benefits of a pre-emption decree passed in his favour or whether substantial compliance with the requirements of such an order is enough ; and (II) Whether on the facts found by the lower appellate Court in this case, the decree-holder-appellant can or cannot be held to have substantially complied with the order of the first appellate Court, dated October 29, 1965, requiring him to deposit the additional sum of Rs. 1,050/ -.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on September 30, 1964, a pre-emption decree in favour of the appellant by the trial Court conditional on the appellant depositing in that Court Rupees 2,950/- on or before December 30, 1964, that the requisite deposit was made within time, that in defendant's appeal against the decree of the trial Court, the pre-emption money to be deposited by the decree-holder was raised by the order of the first appellate Court, dated October 29, 1965, by an additional sum of Rupees 1,050/- which was required to be deposited in the trial Court on or before January 15, 1966, failing which the suit of the appellant was to stand dismissed, that the decree-holder made an application sum of Rs. 1,050/- to the appellate Court and deposited the full required amount in that Court within the time allowed under appellate decree, but did not deposit the same in the trial Court, that on an application of the vendee-defendant-judgment-debtor to withdraw the additional amount, the trial Court held on June 24, 1967, that the suit for pre-emption stood dismissed as the additional mount had not been deposited in the trial Court, and the same finding has been affirmed in the decree-holder's first appeal by the Court of Shri Shanti Swarupa, Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, on November 8, 1967.
(3.) THE executing Court wrote a detailed order wherein the operative portion of the pre-emption decree passed by the first appellate Court was quoted verbatim. It appears to be necessary to quote the same here. (1) "that Nazar Singh is now to further deposit Rs. 1,050/- for payment to Munshi Singh in the Court of the Subordinate Judge II Class, Ferozepore (i. e. , the trial Court)on or before January 15, 1966. (2) That if he (Nazar Singh) fails to deposit the said amount of Rupees 1,050/- in the said Court on or before the said date as directed under (1) above, or that he had failed to deposit Rs. 2,950/in the court on or before December 30, 1964, as already directed by the decree of the trial Court, the suit shall stand dismissed. " The executing Court had relied on a Single Bench judgment of Chevis, J. in Kanhaya Lal v. Mohd. Shafi Khan, (1913) 18 Ind Cas 600 (Lah) and on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ajudhia Prasad v. Gobind Prasad, (1923) 71 Ind Cas 1034 (corresponding to AIR 1923 All 250) in support of its decision, and had further held that in view of the fact that the law of pre-emption is a practical law as held in Surjan Singh v. Harcharan Singh, 69 Pun LR 325 = (AIR 1968 Punj 137) an interpretation which restricts the operation of the law of pre-emption should be preferred in a case where two interpretations are possible. Inasmuch as the decree-holder had neither deposited the decretal amount in the trial Court as directed in the appellate decree, nor informed the trial Court or the judgment-debtor about the deposit having been made in the first appellate Court, the decree-holder had, according to the decision of the executing Court, failed to comply with the specific requirements of the decree, and so his suit stood dismissed in terms of the appellate decree.;