1. Facts of the case have already been enumerated in the previous order of the Court recorded on 30-i1-1993. Proceedings taken today shall be read in its continuity.
2. Learned counsel for the parties were heard. Record was examined. Right to pre-empt was not denied. Dispute was on the price payable for the land sought to be pre-empted. In the mutation of sale No. 621, Rs.1456 was shown as the sale-price. Mehra admitted it in para 1 of the plaint. In the written statement, the vendee-Zahoor Ahmad did not raise a dispute about the sale-price. In the first round, suit was tried on a preliminary issue on the pre--emptibility of the sale-transaction.
3. Reference to the decision on it has already been made above. Upon remand, the defendant- vendee applied to the trial Court for amending the written statement to add that the land was purchased for Rs.21,456 and also claimed expenses for improvements on the land in the sum of Rs.7,860. Plaintiffs resisted the proposed amendments. By order dated 24-9-1971, the trial Court gave permission for proposed amendments in the written statement. Consequently, issue as to price payable for the land was introduced. The onus of it was on the defendant-vendee. Plaintiff produced three documents Exht. P-1 to Exh. P-3 and closed affirmative evidence, on 18-12-1971.
4. Since defendant evidence was not available, trial was adjourned to 17-1-1972 for his evidence. On the adjourned date, defendant gave no evidence and requested for further adjournment. It was allowed for 4-3-1972 subject to payment of Rs.30 as costs. On the adjourned date, defendant again defaulted. This time, the trial Court did not accommodate request for adjournment and closed the defence evidence under order XVII, Rule 3, Civil P.C and upon hearing arguments, decreed the suit subject to payment of Rs.1,456 to be deposited till 20-5-1972. Appeal filed against this judgment was dismissed as given above.
5. It was urged that closing Provisions in Order XVII, Rule 3, Civil P.C .were erroneously applied by the trial Court and one more opportunity ought to have been allowed to advance the cause of justice. I am unable to appreciate the merit of this contention. Defendant-appellant was allowed enough time to produce his evidence, but he persistently defaulted. Therefore, the trial Court had every justification to invoke its powers under Order XVII; Rule 3, Civil P.C for putting an end to the delaying techniques. Also, there was no material in writing to show that the price fixed for the land was Rs.21,456 as against Rs.1,456 given in the sale-mutation. It was for the first time after remand from the High Court that the amount of sale-price was altered. In the first written statement filed soon after filing of the pre-emption suit, no mention of it was made.
6. Upon this view, there is little force in this second appeal. It is, consequently dismissed with costs.
7. Records shall be returned.