- (1.) This second appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, reversing, on appeal, the decision of the trial Court, rejecting the plaint under Section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) The pre-emptor filed a suit to pre-empt the sale of land measuring 16 Kanals 8 Marlas for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 11,500. The sale-deed was executed on the 19th of October, 1967. The suit for possession by pre-emption was filed by the vendor's brother, Pritam Singh, on the 18th of October, 1968; and he claimed that the value of the land had been inflated in the sale-deed to avoid pre-emption; and, therefore, he should be permitted to pre-empt the sale of land on payment of Rs. 3,150. In the suit, the trial Court passed the following order on the 26th of October, 1968 :- "............... Suit be registered. Zare Panjam should be deposited up to 21.11.1968. Summons to issue to the defendants on payment of process-fee for 22.11.1968." No amount was deposited on the 21st of November, 1968. On the date of the hearing, that is, the 22nd of November, 1968, an application was made for extension of time. This application was opposed by the vendees; and the trial Court ultimately rejected the application; and thereby passed an order rejecting the plaint under Section 22 of the act. Against this decision, an appeal was taken to the District Judge; and the learned district Judge, acting under Section 22(4) of the Act, has allowed the extension of time, with the result that the decision of the trial Court has been set aside and the case remitted to it for decision on the merits. Against this decision, the present Second Appeal from Order has been preferred by the vendees.
(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the lower appellate Court has erred in allowing the extension of time under Section 22(4) of the Act. I am unable to agree with this contention. The trial Court did not examine the ground on which the extension was sought, namely, that the pre-emptor had taken his produce to the market and was unable to dispose of the same. However, had this contention been examined on evidence and found to be incorrect, possibly, the lower appellate Court would have no ground to interfere with the order of the trial Court. The matter was not examined with regard to the allegation of the pre-emptor. The Court merely refers to extend time because the payment had not been made within the due date.;