Judgement

RAY. C. J. :- This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 2nd May, 1973 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

2. The appellants are vendees of the land in suit. The vendors sold the land to the appellants for Rs. 43.000/- on 26th August, 1965. The transaction was by registered deed of sale.

3. The respondents filed this suit for possession by pre-emption of the land in payment of Rs. 30,000/- on allegations that the respondents were on the date of sale tenants of the land under the vendors. The respondents alleged that their right of pre-emption was superior to that of the vendees. They also alleged that the sale took place for Rs. 30,000/- only and the remaining amount was fictitiously mentioned in the deed of sale. The suit was dismissed on the ground that one suit on behalf of the four plaintiffs who were tenants of different parts of the land, was not maintainable.

3-A. On appeal the suit was remanded for re-trial.

4. At the trial on remand, two plaintiffs withdrew from the suit. The trial Court directed the remaining two plaintiffs-respondents 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 trial Court gave the respondent Sohan Lal a decree for possession by pre-emption in respect of Killas Nos. 14/1, 17 and 18/1 of Rectangle 37. The plaintiffs-respondents aggrieved by the order filed an appeal alleging that the respondent Sohan Lal was a tenant of Killa No. 24 under the vendors and the decree should have been passed in their favour for the whole of the land and that decree should have been passed in favour of Sohan Lal in respect of Killa No. 24 of Rectangle 37. The other ground in the appeal was that the decree should have been passed in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents for whole of the land.

5. The Additional District Judge on 29th July. 1969 passed a decree for possession by pre-emption in favour of respondent Sohan Lal on payment of Rs. 9,100/- and he was directed to deposit this amount in Court on or before 20th August 1969. The Additional District Judge passed a decree for possession by pre-emption in favour of respondent Sohan Lal of Killa No. 24 of Rectangle 37. The decree in favour of respondent Nathi was maintained without change.

6. Thereafter, the appellants preferred an appeal in the High Court alleging that the decision that plaintiff-respondent Sohan Lal was also a tenant of Killa No. 24 was incorrect and should be set aside and the decree of the trial Court should be restored. The appellants also prayed that the decrees in favour of the two plaintiffs-respondents Sohan Lal and Nathi were liable to be set aside.

7. The appellants contended before the High Court that respondents Sohan Lal and Nathi did not deposit the decretal amount by 1st April, 1969 as directed by the trial Court and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed under the provisions contained in Order 20. Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. The other contention of the appellants before the High Court was that the plaintiff-respondent Sohan Lal should not have been granted pre-emption rights in respect of Killa No. 24.

9. The High Court on 2nd May, 1973 accepted the appeal of the appellants against the plaintiff Nathi and dismissed the appeal against the plaintiff respondent Sohan LaI. The High Court said that since the lower appellate Court granted Sohan Lal decree for one more Killa and directed that the amount would be Rs. 9,100/-, the respondent was to comply with the appellate decree and not the decree of the trial Court.

10. The appellants contended that neither Sohan Lal nor Nathi deposited the amount in accordance with the decree of the trial Court on or before 1st April,1969 and the suit should have been dismissed on that ground alone and the appeal should have been allowed. The appellants contended that the lower appellate Court had no power and jurisdiction to give further time to Sohan