Once Zar-e-panjam is withdrawn by the plaintiff, the court is required to dismiss the suit under Sec.22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913.

1. This revising petition has been filed by Avtar Singh defendant against the order of the Subordinate Judge III Class, Sirsa. Dt. 27th Aug., 1981, allowing the application of Banarsi Das respondent to redeposit Zar-epanjam.

2. Briefly, the facts are that Nathu Ram sold the property in dispute in favour of Avtar Singh petitioner vide Sale-deed Dt. 28th July, 1977. Two suits for possession by pro-emption were filed---one by Ramesh Kumar and the other by Banarsi Dass, son and nephew of the vendor, respectively. Both the suits were consolidated by the trial Court and decided together. It came to the conclusion that both the plaintiffs had superior right of pre-emption. Consequently, it decreed the suits with the direction that Ramesh Kumar plaintiff would deposit the amount of Rs. 32,766/less the amount of Zar-e-panjam, on or before 5th June, 1980, failing which the suit of Banarsi Dass would stand decreed and he would deposit the preemption amount on or before 13th June, 1980. In case he failed to do so, then both the suits would stand dismissed.

3. The vendee petitioners filed an appeal on 13th June, 1980, against the judgment and decree of the trial Court which was accepted by the appellate Court on 27th Oct., 1980, and the case was remanded after framing two additional issues for deciding the matter afresh.

4. Banarsi Dass respondent withdrew his Zar-e-panjam during pendency of the appeal on 14th Aug., 1980, and after the remand he made an application to the trial Court on 10th Nov., 1980, to allow him to redeposit the Zar-e-panjam which was allowed by the trial Court vide the impugned order, the vendeepetitioner has come up in revision to this Court.

5. The only question that arises for determination is that after the money having been withdrawn by respondent No. 2, whether the Court could allow its re-deposit by him after remand of the case. Sub-sec. (1) of Sec.22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 , inter alia provides that in every suit for preemption the Court, shall at, or at any time before, the settlement of issues require the plaintiff to deposit in the Court such sum as does not exceed onefifth of the probable value of the land or property. Cl. (a) of sub-sec. (5) of that section says that if any sum so deposited is withdrawn by the plaintiff, the suit or appeal shall be dismissed. From a reading of the two sub-sections, it is evident that if the plaintiff withdraws Zar-e-panjam the Court is required to dismiss his suit.

6. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is clear that after the remand, the suits of both the plaintiffs revived. The suit of respondent No. 2, in view of cl. (a) of sub-sec. (5) ibid, however, was liable to be dismissed as he had withdrawn Zar-e-panjam. The Court is not empowered under Sec.22 or any other provision of the said Act to order re-deposit of zar-e-panjam once it has been withdrawn.

7. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has urged that Zar-e-panjam was withdrawn during the pendency of the appeal and the suit, therefore, cannot be dismissed after remand. In support of his contention, he places reliance on Sanwal Das V/s. Jaigo Mal, AIR 1924 Lah 68. I am not impressed with the contention. In that case, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and the vendee obtained a stay order in appeal. The plaintiffs thereupon were allowed to withdraw the pre-emption money deposited in accordance with the decree of the Court. The counsel for the appellants argued that on account of the withdrawal of pre-emption money, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was liable to be dismissed. In other words, he wanted the appeal to be accepted and suit dismissed. It may be highlighted that there the amount was withdrawn with the permission of the Court and the reason to grant permission was that the dispossession of the vendee appellant had been stayed by it. It is in these circumstances that the Court observed that the deposit was a taken of good faith and once the pre-emptor obta