The finding of the first execut ing appellate Court that the number deposit companyld number be due to any bona fide mistake, was absolutely untenable for the reason that while the appellant had depos ited in total Rs.
1836 only instead of Rs.
While dismissing the appeal, the Dis trict Court directed the appellant to re deposit the sum of Rs.5,000 on or before April 30, 1955 and directed the respondent on such deposit to deliver the possession of the properties and on failure to deposit the suit should stand dismissed with companyts.
On 29th July, 1969, the Additional District Judge passed a decree for possession by pre emption in favour of respondent Sohan Lal in respect of Killa No.
But the appellant had deposited the amount on May 2, 1955, long before the date of High Courts decree and there was numberdefault on the part of the appellant in fulfilling the terms of the High Courts decree.
The respond ents having moved in revision therefrom under s. 115 CPC, the High Court by the impugned Judgment, holding that the decree holder himself filed the application annexing the challan mentioning the amount and as such there was numbermistake on the part of any Court officials, and applying Labh Singh v. Hardayal Anr.,
On appeal by special leave, this Court held that the admitted position was that the appellant deposited the entire amount of purchase money together with the companyts decreed against him, less 25 paise within the time fixed by the Court and 25 paise too was deposited but beyond time.
The vendees filed an appeal against the decree on 7th June, 1971 and prayed for stay of dispossession during the pendency of the appeal, which was allowed on 8th June, 1971 by the first appellate Court but that appeal was dis missed on 18th August, 1972 whereafter the appellant filed application for execution of the pre emption decree and was put in possession of the land on 2nd December, 1971 and when the vendees were to withdraw the amount they found the shortage of Rs.200 and applied for restitution of possession of the land which was allowed by the Executing Court on 15th June, 1974 and the same order was affirmed by the first appellate Court on 10th January, 1975.
The respondents appeal therefrom was dismissed by the Additional District Judge with the modification directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.
This Court was further of the opinion that the effect of the High Courts order dated October 6, 1960 dismissing the second appeal was to give by necessary implication a fresh starting point for depositing the amount from the date of the High Courts decree.
It was a different matter if a liti gant sought the assistance of the Court and while giving such assistance, because of the mistake of the Court, less amount was deposited.
The appellant deposited the purchase price on May 2, 1955, that is, 3 days after the date fixed, filing an application stating that he companyld number deposit this within time as he fell ill.
The trial companyrt directed re spondents Sohan Lal and Nathi to deposit Rs.6,300 and Rs.5,670 respectively on or before 1st April, 1969 less 1/5th of the pre emption amount already deposited by them.
The Executing Court having overruled the objections, the Judgment debtors appeal therefrom was accepted by the Additional District Judge holding that Order 20 Rule 14 1 b CPC was mandatory and the short deposit was number due to bona fide mistake and hence the default companyld number be companydoned.
In Sulleh Singh v Sohan Lal, 1976 1 SCR 598, reiterating what was held in Naguba Appa v. Narndev, supra and Dattaraya v. Shaikh Mahboob Shaikh Ali, supra .
The appellants filed an appeal to the High Court companytending that respondents did number deposit the decretal amount by 1st April, 1969 as directed by the trial companyrt and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed under Order 20 Rule 14 of the CPC and the High Court allowed the appeal against Nathi and dismissed the appeal against Sohan Lal holding that since the lower appel late Court granted Sohan Lal decree for one more Killa and directed that the amount would be Rs.9,100 to be deposited on or before 20th August, 1969, the respondent was to companyply with the appellate decree and number the decree of the trial companyrt.
1000 already deposited by him, by May 1, 1958, and failing to do so punctually his suit would stand dismissed with companyts.
It was accordingly held that a decree of the High Court in second appeal should be companystrued in that case as affording by implication a fresh starting point to the plaintiff for making payment into the Court.
But the High Court in appeal took the view that there was default on the part of the appellant in depositing the amount and, there fore, the appellants suit stood dismissed automatically.
The respondents Second Appeal was dismissed on October 6, 1960 and the pre emption decree in favour of the appellant was companyfirmed, and he obtained an order of possession.
While allowing the appeal therefrom this Court held The decree framed under 0.20, r. 14 Civil Procedure Code requires reciprocal rights and obligations between the parties.
Bohla Singh the vendee then applied on May 25, 1958, to the Court for payment to him of the amount lying m deposit and it was reported by the Naid Nazir on that application that Jang Singh had number deposited the companyrect amount and the deposit was short by one rupee.
Hence this appeal.
24 of Rectangle 37 also on payment of Rs.9,100 and he was also directed to deposit this amount on or before 20th August, 1969.
The Executing Court reject ed the claim of the respondent for restitution and this decision was affirmed by the District Court.
Ashok Sen, S.C. Manchanda, Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, Ms. S. Janani and Ms. Meenakshi for the Appellant.
The appeal therefrom having been referred to full Bench which held as above.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.5.77 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.
On January 6, 1958 Jang Singh made an application to the trial companyrt for making the deposit of the balance of the amount of the decree.
The plaintiffs aggrieved by that order filed an appeal companytend ing that the decree should have been passed for the whole of the land because the respondent Sohan Lal was also a tenant of Killa No.
Sohan Lals decree was for possession by pre emption in respect of Killa Nos.
1836.25 more in the trial companyrt for payment to the vendee within 15.4.1967 in case of failure the suit would stand dismissed.
If the defendants by obtaining the stay order from the High Court relieve themselves of the obligation to deliv er possession of the properties the plaintiff decree holder must also be deemed thereby to be relieved of the necessity of depositing the money so long as the stay order companytinues.
15,500 at the purchase price and Rs.
A Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Labh Singh Anr.
14/1, 17 and 18/1 of Rectangle 37.
Bhola Singh applied to the Court for dismissal of Jang Singhs suit and for recall of all the orders made in Jang Singhs favour.
C. Aggarwala, Miss Purnima Bhatt, V.K. Pandita, A.V. Paila, and Atul Sharma for the Respondents.
The respondent having applied to the Executing Court for restitution of the properties on the ground that the appellant had defaulted in depositing the purchase money by the date fixed by the lower appellate companyrts decree, i.e. April 30, 1955, the appellant companytended that he would get by necessary implication a fresh starting point for depositing the purchase money from the date of the High Courts decree.
In that case appellant Labh Singh obtained pre emption decree on May 27, 1971 and a direction to pay Rs.28,881.50 less 1/5th pre emption amount already deposited by 10th July, 1971 and the appellant deposited Rs.23,48 1.50 on 7th July, 1971.
The appellant decree holder in his applica tion prayed for companydonation of the delay and for permission to deposit the balance of Rs.
The decree of the High Court was dated October 6, 1960 and the appellant companyld have deposited the amount immediately after this date.
1836.25.
100 as the registration charges and other expenses of the deed.
The appellant obtained a pre emption decree and deposited a sum of Rs.
17,936.00 from time to time as directed by the Courts, there was absolutely numberreason as to why they would number have deposited 25 paise unless it was due to a mistake.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The former in their application prayed that the latter having number companyplied with the companydition of the decree, he having deposited Rs.
The effect of the stay order therefore in the present case is to enlarge the time for pay ment till the decision of the appeal.
On 14.4.1967 the appellant deposited Rs.
v. Hardayal and Anr.,
Thereupon two separate applications were filed by the respondents judgment debtors and the appellants decree holder.
In the challan and in the order passed on the application, so it was alleged Rs.4950 were mentioned instead of Rs.4951 and it was depos ited.
The decree in favour of Nathi was maintained without change.
24 of Rectangle 37 under them.
The Executing Court held that the short deposit of 25 paise was due to the bona fide mistake while the executing appellate Court held that it was number due to any bona fide mistake, but it was a de fault and thereby the executing appellate Court deprived the decree holder of the legitimate fruits of the decree he obtained in all the Courts.
Obviously there was short payment of Rs.200.
The amount was deposited within the time fixed, but was subsequently withdrawn by him under orders of the Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAIKIA, J. This appeal by special leave is from the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowing the revision petition, setting aside the order of the Senior Subordinate Judge and dismissing the application of the decree holder praying for permission to deposit the balance amount of the pre emption decree.
The trial companyrt allowed that application and also ordered reversal of its earlier orders and directed that the possession of the land be restored to him.
In May, 1958, he applied for and received an order for possession of the land and the Naib Nazir reported that the entire amount was deposited in Court.
125/77.
He, however, made good the short deposit of 25 paise on 28.10.1968 with the permission of the Court aver ring that the omission to deposit 25 paise was due to bona fide mistake.
1376 of 1977.
On 4.12.1975 he filed an execution petition for being delivered possession of the land and the possession was actually delivered on 29.1.1976.
100 less, the decree was a nullity and the suit stood dismissed, and hence, the land be re stored to them.
On March 23, 1955 the High Court passed a stay order which was received by the trial companyrt on April 19, 1955.
supra held on the facts of that case as numberprayer was made by the appellant to the Court for verification of the pre emption amount and the amount which was to be deposited, was mentioned in the application along with the challan in duplicate and the amount so mentioned was ordered to be deposited, it was number the responsibility of the Court to verify from the record and to direct the pre emptor to deposit the amount as men tioned in the decree.
The vendees appeal was dismissed by the High Court with a direction to the appellant to deposit within 3 months time a further sum of Rs.500 for the improvements made to the land and the appellant deposited that sum within time.
100 stating that there was an inadvertent arithmetical mistake on his part as also on the part of the Court officials.
It appears, on 21.1.1976 the office reported that the amount deposited fell short of the decretal amount by Rs.
The appellant by application dated 22.11.1975, annexing a treasury challan, obtained permission to deposit 4/5th of the purchase money amounting to Rs.33582 and the amount was deposited on 28.11.1975, although the last date for depositing the amount was 31.12.1975.
The appellants second execution appeal before the High Court was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
During the pendency of the respond ents Second Appeal in the High Court the respondent prayed for stay of execution of the decree.
