1 The following two questions, which, in the opinion of a learned Single Judge of this court are important questions of law, have been referred to full Bench for consideration:

1 /- Whether the court has power to extend time, where the order provides that a thing shall be done within a particular time and in the event of default, the suit, application-appeal, shall stand dismissed even when the application for extensions is filed after the time fixed by the court has expired ?

2 /- In particular, whether the court has power to extend time, where in a suit for pre-emption, the trial court while decreeing the suit has directed that the plaintiff should deposit the price within a certain time and in default the suit shall stand dismissed, even when the application for extensions is filed after the time fixed for depositing the price has expired?

2 The aforesaid two questions have arisen in a revision petition which was filed by the petitioner against the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Sub Judge) Jammu where by the application of the petitioner under section 148 CPC was dismissed. The petitioner seems to have filed a suit to enforce right of prior purchase in which he had obtained a decree on the basis of right of prior purchase and the decree had directed him to deposit the consideration amount within the specified time and on his failure to do so, he prayed for extension of time after the period for deposit had expired. The court below refused to extend the time. Against that order a revision was preferred and out of the revision, the above two questions have been formulated for consideration.

3. The learned Single Judge has noticed some conflict between two authorities of the court, I. e. Krishan Dutt Vs. Mohinder Nath (AIR 1975 J&K, 18 and Hakim Akber Ali Vs. Haji Abdul Whab and Ors (AIR 1977 J&K, 36). In Krishan Dutts case Division Bench has held that time cannot be extended where the petitioner applies for extension of time after the expiry of time originally fixed by the Court. In Hakim Akbar Alls case a learned Single of this Court has taken a contrary view and has held that court has power to extend time which originally fixed even after the expiry of that time.

4. For the proper appreciation of the controversy which is aimed to be resolved by this Bench, it is necessary to trace out the power of the court which decrees a claim of a litigant on the basis of right of prior purchase and which directs the pre-emptor to pay the price of the property in respect of which his right of prior purchase is enforced by the court.

5. The fixation of time in the judgment and decree for payment of purchase price by the pre-emptor is not in the discretion of the court, but is regulated by 0.20 R. 14 CPC which enjoins upon the Court to pass a conditional decree. O. 20 R. 14 (1) (a) (b) C as applicable to this case reads as under:-

Where the court decrees a claim to right of prior purchase in respect of a particular sale of property and the purchase-money has not been paid into court, the decree shall.

a. specify a day on or before which the purchase money shall be so paid, and

b. direct that on payment into court of such purchase-money together with the costs (if any) decreed against the plaintiff: on or before the day referred to in clause

(a), the defendant shall deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff, whose title thereto shall be deemed to have accrued from the date of such payment but that, if the purchase money and the costs (if any) are not so paid, the suit shall be dismissed with costs."

6 From the aforesaid provision of CPC, it would be clear that where a claim on the basis of right of prior purchase is decreed in respect of a particular sale of property and the purchase money has not been paid into the court has to make the following directions, however if purchase money is paid in the court, [the directions may not be made:

i) It has to specify the date on or before which date preemptor has to be directed