Judgment:
G.R. Majithia, J.
1. This application has been moved by the plaintiff respondent/pre-emptor for extending the time for depositing the pre-emption amount.
2. The facts :-
Udey Singn, plaintiff respondent/pre empter (hereinafter the pre- emptor) filed a suit for possession by pre emption of the suit land. The suit was contested on numerous grounds. The trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated September 18, 1986. The same was affirmed in appeal by the first appellate Court vide his judgment and decree dated February 3, 1979. The first appellate Court directed the pre-emptor to deposit a sum of Rs. 5983.25 (sale price) on April 30, 1979. The vendee-appellants, aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court challenged the same in this Court in R. S A. No. 690 of 1979. The appeal was admitted to hearing on May 12, 1979 and dispossession of the vendee-appellants (hereinafter the vendees) was stayed. The ad interim stay order was made absolute on July 13, 1979. Civil Misc. No. 2524-C of 1982 was moved by the preemptor for withdrawing the sale price. It was stated in the application that a sum of Ks. 5983-25 was deposited by the pre emptor as directed by the first appellate Court and the amount was lying in deposit with the Stats Bank of India, Sirsa. The vendees had obtained an order staying their dispossession from the suit land and he had been deprived of the possession and also of interest on the sale price A prayer was also made that the sale price deposited by the pre emptor, as directed by the first appellate Court, be allowed to be withdrawn and the same would be re-deposited as directed by this Court while disposing of the appeal. The application came up for hearing on October 5, 1982 and the same was disposed of observing thus :-
'This is an application by the respondent pre emptor for permission to withdraw the sale money deposited by him as delivery of the possession has been stayed. Notice of this application was issued to the learned counsel for the appellant who has no objection if the prayer is allowed. Accordingly, the respondent decree holder is allowed to withdraw the sale amount as mentioned in the application with the condition that he will re-deposit the same as directed by this court on the final date of hearing'.
The appeal was dismissed by me on February 24, 1992 with the following observations :-
'For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal fails and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. The plaintiff was allowed to withdraw the sale amount by order dated October 5, 1982 passed in Civil Misc. No. 2524-;C of 1982. He is directed to deposit the same within two months from the date of the judgment.'
3. This application has been moved by the pre emptor for extending time for re-depositing the sale price. It is stated therein that the regular second appeal was decided on February 24, 1992; that the application for obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree was moved on February 25, 1992; that the judgment and decree was prepared on August 4, 1992 but was delivered to the applicant only on October 12, 1992; that the counsel sent the intimation to the applicant through letter dated February 24, 1992 followed by another letter dated August 4, 1992, but the same were not received by him. The applicant contacted the lawyer's Clerk on his own and got the information and a copy of the judgment was delivered to him on October 13, 1992. The applicant's counsel in the trial Court advised the applicant that the amount could not be deposited till the time was extended by this Court and it is in these circumstances that this application has been moved for extending the time. The application was moved in this Court on October i5, 1992 and the averments made therein are duly supported by the affidavit of the applicant. There is no rebuttal to these averments.
4. Shri G. S Chawla, Advocate was the counsel for the vendee appellants in the regular second appeal. Notice of this application was given to him. Shri Navkiran Stngh, Advocate son of Shri G S. Chawla, Advocate appeared on December 17, 1992 and stated that the client had withdrawn the brief from him and that notice be issued to the vendee-appellants. On April 2, 1993, Shri Navkiran Singh, Advocate appeared and stated that he had received instructions to appear on behalf of the vendee-appellants and at the request of the counsel for the parties, the application was adjourned to April 23, 1993.
5. Learned counsel for the vendee-appellants stated that the tinie allowed by this Court for re-depositing the sale price could not be extended and in support of this submission, ta relied upon the judgment of the apex Curt in Johri Singh v. Sukh Pal Singh, A. I. R. 1989 S. C. 2073. This judgment does not support the vendee-appellants ; rather it supports the contention of the pre emptor.
6. The brief resume of the facts stated above reveals that the sale price was deposited by the pre emptor as directed by the first appellate Court. The judgment and decree of the first appellate Court was challenged in this Court through regular second appeal and the vendee appellants got an order from this Court staying their dispossession. The pre-emptor moved an application for withdrawal of the sale price and the same was allowed in the presence of the counsel for the vendee appellants The vendees are still in possession of the disputed land. After the decision of the regular second appeal, they did not surrender the possession to the pre-emptor. They get a right to receive the sale price only after surrendering possession of the suit land to the pre-emptor. They have succeeded in retaining the possession even till today. The assertion of the pre-emptor that they had no knowledge of the judgment rendered by this Court in the regular second appeal till October 12, 1992 has not been controverted by the vendees. The assertion of the pre-emptor that the letters addressed by his counsel to him intimating about the decision of the appeal were not received by him remains uncontroverted In the absence of any rebuttal, the plea of the pre-emptor that he had no knowledge of the decision of the appeal till October 12, 1992 has to be believed. The Court has the discretion under Section 148, Civil Procedure Code, to extend the time even though the time fixed in pre-emption decree has already expired, provided that the mistake is bona fide and was not indicative of negligence or inaction. In the instant case, the facts indicated above firmly establish that the pre-emptor has been acting bona fide and no negligence or inaction can be attributed to him and on the proved facts, to further the cause of justice time should be allowed to him to re-deposit the sale price
For the reasons stated above, I allow this application and permit the pre-emptor/applicant to re-deposit the sale price in terms of the decree as indicated in my judgment and decree dated February 24, 1992, on or before July 23, 1993.