H.R. Sodhi, J. - (1.) THE following two questions of law arising in S.A.O. No. 17 of 1966 have been referred to a larger Bench by a learned Single Judge by an order, dated 16th November, 1967, and it is in these circumstances that the case is before us - - 1. If the Court once orders under Section 22(1) of the Punjab Pre -emption Act, 1913 (Act 1 of 1913), that one -fifth of the sale consideration be deposited in cash, has the Court authority subsequently to change this order and direct that security for the sale consideration be furnished?
(2.) IF the Court fixed the time for deposit for cash can it subsequently extend the time? The facts which led to this reference are not in dispute. Hardev Singh and others Plaintiffs filed a suit on 4th July, 1964, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, for possession by pre -emption of agricultural land measuring 234 Kanals 12 Marias situate in village Dauley alleged to have been sold for a consideration of Rs. 40,876 in favour of Dalip Singh, etc. Defendants 1 to 4 by the other Defendants 5 to 12, Joginder Singh, etc. The trial Court ordered on 25th July, 1964, that the Plaintiffs should deposit one -fifth of the sale consideration (Zare Panjam) amounting to Rs. 8,175.20 Paise up to 7th August, 1964. On the same day, an application was made by the Plaintiffs requesting the Court to extend the time for deposit of one -fifth of the sale consideration and this request was allowed, the time having been extended up to 25th August, 1964. Again another application was made on 12th August, 1964, in which it was stated that the Plaintiffs were minors and it was difficult for them to arrange for the huge amount of Rs. 8,175.20 Paise which had been ordered to be deposited as one -fifth. The counsel for the Plaintiffs did not press this application when it came up for hearing on 13th August. 1964 and it had consequently to be filed. There was then another application made by the Plaintiffs on 14th August, 1964, which was almost in similar terms, but a further prayer was added that instead of the Plaintiffs being called upon to deposit one -fifth cash, they may be permitted to give security for the payment of the sale price amounting to Rs. 40,876. The Court allowed this to be done by 21st September, 1964. The security was furnished on 19th August, 1964 and the Court accepted the same. 2. The vendees Defendants Dalip Singh and others filed an application with a prayer that the plaint be rejected in terms of Section 22(4) of the Punjab Pre -emption Act, hereinafter called the Act, as the Plaintiffs had failed to deposit the amount of one -fifth within the period allowed by the Court. This application was dismissed and issues were settled. Some evidence was led and the case adjourned to 9th August, 1965 to enable that parties to reach some compromise, as desired by them. No compromise could be arrived at and the Defendants made another application on 9th August, 1965 praying that the suit be dismissed as no security could be taken instead of the cash deposit which had been directed earlier. It was pleaded that the order allowing the Plaintiffs to furnish security instead of the deposit of cash was a nullity. There were other objections also taken by the vendees, namely, that the security bond was not executed on a proper stamp -paper and the counsel who made the application to get the order for the deposit of cash converted into that of furnishing security had no authority to do so, since he did not hold any power of attorney from the Plaintiffs. It is not necessary to recapitulate all the objections and it is enough for the purpose of this reference to mention that the trial Court accepted the objections of the vendees -Defendants and rejected the plaint by its order, dated 12th August, 1965.
(3.) THE Plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Kapurthala who allowed the same by his order, dated 22nd February, 1966, holding that it was competent for the trial Court to ask for security instead of the deposit of one -fifth of the sale price as previously ordered by it. The security bond was held to have been written not on a properly stamped paper, but it was directed by the appellate Court that the Subordinate Judge should have called upon the Plaintiffs to make up the deficiency as laid down in Section 22(5) of the Act. The case was accordingly remanded and against that order of remand, Dalip Singh etc. the vendees came up in second appeal to this Court. When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the two questions of law referred to above and arising in the case be better settled by a larger Bench.;