' This petition filed under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the appellate judgment dated 16-2- 1995, whereby the dismissal of the petitioner's suit by the trial Court was upheld.
2. In the pre-emption suit, the learned trial Court directed the petitioner vide order dated 17-4-1994 to deposit Zar-e-Soem amounting to Rs,6,667, within one month. However, the required amount was deposited on 18-5-1994. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 24-6-1994 on the consideration that the deposit of 1/3rd of the sale price had to be made, as per statutory requirement, within thirty days of the institution of the suit. Appeal filed against the dismissal of the suit also failed.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the trial Court had directed the deposit of the 1/3rd sale price within one month, vide order dated 17-4-1994. The required deposit was made on 18-5- 1994. In this way, the learned counsel contends, that the delay is of only one day and the learned appellate Court fell in error while holding that the deposit had to be made before 14-5-1994. He further contends that the learned trial Court should have extended the period for deposit of the pre-emption money by one day, so as to regularise the deposit. According to the learned counsel, the ends of justice required such a course to be adopted by the trial Court in view of the long standing practice of Civil Courts in pre-emption matters.
4. The learned counsel is right to some extent in saying that the learned Appellate Court, while observing that the deposit of 1/3rd of sale price had to be made before 14-5-1995, has not correctly read the order of the learned trial Court, who on 17-4-1994 directed to make the deposit within one month. It means that the deposit should have been made by or before 17-5-1994 and not 14-5- 1994. It may, however, be seen that the Appellate Court made this observation by taking into consideration the first proviso of section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, which required the deposit to be made within thirty days of the filing of the suit. Evidently it was a mistake on the part of the learned trial Court to allow the petitioner to make the deposit within one month of the order passed on 17-4-1995. The trial Court should have given time for making the deposit not beyond thirty days of the filing of the suit.
' However, in the circumstances of the present case, this factor is of not much relevance, because the deposit was not made even in terms of the order passed by the trial Court. According to this order the deposit had to be made by or before 17-5-1995, but the same was in fact made on 18-5- 1995. Admittedly, therefore, there is a delay of at least one day.
5. Let me now deal with the contention of the learned counsel that the trial Court should have extended the period for depositing 1/3rd of the sale-price with a view to regularise the deposit, in the interest of justice. It appears that the learned counsel has made this contention with reference to the provisions of erstwhile Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, which allowed the Courts to extend the period for making such a deposit. However, under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, which presently holds the field, the. Court has no power to extend the period for such deposit. In this context it will be fruitful to reproduce section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 and section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. These provisions are given below:- "Section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. 1913: Plaintiff may be called on to make deposit or to file security.--(1) In every suit for pre-emption the Court shall at or at any time before, the settlement of issues requires the plaintiff to deposit in Court such sum as does not, in the opinion of the Court. Exceed one-fifth of the probable value of the land or property, or require the plaintiff to give security to the satisfaction of the Court for the payment. If required, of a sum not exceeding such probable value within such time as the Court may fix in such order.
(2) In any appeal the Appellate Court may at any time exercise the powers conferred on a Court under subsection (1)
(3) Every sum deposited or secured under subsection (1) or (2) shall be available for the discharge of costs.
'(4) If the plaintiff fails within the time fixed by the Court or within such further time as the Court may allow to make the deposit or furnish the security mentioned in subsections (1) or (2), his plaint shall be rejected or his appeal dismissed as the case may be.
(5) (a) If any sum so deposited is withdrawn by the plaintiff, the suit or appeal shall be dismissed.
(b) If any security so furnished for any cause becomes void or insufficient, the Court shall order the plaintiff to furnish fresh security or to increase the security, as the case may be, within a time to be fixed by the Court, and if the plaintiff fails to comply with such order, the suit or appeal shall be dismissed.
(6) The estimate of the probable value made for the purpose of subsection (1) shall not affect any decision subsequently come to as to what is the market value of the land or property.
Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991.
24. Plaintiff to deposit saleprice of the property.--(1) In every suit for pre-emption, the Court shall require the plaintiff to deposit in such Court one-third of the sale price of the property in cash within such period as the Court may fix: Provided that such period shall not extend beyond thirty days of the filing of the suit; Provided further that if no sale price is mentioned in the sale-deed or in the mutation, or the price so mentioned appears to be inflated, the Court shall require deposit of one-third of the probable value of the property.
(2) Where the plaintiff fails to make a deposit under subsection (1) within the period fixed by the Court, or withdraws the sum so deposited by him, his suit shall be dismissed.
(3) Every sum deposited under subsection (1) shall be available for the discharge of costs.
(4) The probable value fixed under subsection (1) shall not affect the final determination of the sale price payable by the pre-emptor?
6. A bare perusal of the aforequoted provisions of the two statutes makes it clear that the law has been made more stringent for a pre-emptor in the matter of deposit of 1/3rd of the sale price.
Under the 1913 Act the Court could fix the period in its own discretion for making the deposit and this period could be further extended by the Court, and in lieu of the cash deposit security could be given to the satisfaction of the Court. But section 24 of the existing Act of 1991 has drastically changed the law. Now 1/3rd of the sale price has to be deposited in cash in the Court. The period within which the deposit can be made has also been prescribed. The prescribed period is 30 days from the institution of the suit. The extension, if any, can be made by the Court within 30 days of the institution of the suit. The Court has no jurisdiction to extend the period for the said deposit beyond 30 days of the institution of the suit. Subsection (2) of section 24 further provides that if the deposit is not made within the period fixed by the Court the suit shall be dismissed. Since the penal consequences for the non-deposit of the 1/3rd sale price have been provided, the provisions of section 24 are mandatory. The Court, in this view of the legal position has to dismiss the suit if the deposit is not made within the time fixed by it, which time has to be not beyond 30 days of the institution of the suit.
7. For what has been discussed above, the view taken by the learned Appellate Court is in accordance with the provisions of law. Resultantly, the revision petition has no merits and is dismissed in limine.