Thokchom Haithumba Singh vs R.K.Babusana Singh

A suit for preemption brought by R. K. Babusana Singh against Th. Haitnumbs Bingh was decreed by the Additional Munsiff, Manipur on 2710&1. The plaintiff was to deposit o; to pay to the defendant Rs. 65/ sale money by 161151. Appeal against the above decree was dismissed by the District Judge on 5552. The decree holder Babusana Singh applied for execution o the above decree in the Court of the Munsiff (which was a successor court) as by that time the Court of the Additional Munsiff was terminated as the preemption money was not deposited the decreeholder applied to that court for withdrawal of his application for execution. The learned| Munsiff thereupon dismissed the execution suit on 4453 on the ground that it did not lay as the D. H. did not deposit or pay the money within the prescribed period.

The D. H. after that filed a Misc. Application in the court of the District Judge which was registered as Misc. Case No. 8 of 1953 and resulted in extension, of the time for deposit of the above amount till 10853. The order was passed on 9753. The present petition is for revising the above order by setting it aside on the ground that it was without jurisdiction and that the D. E ought to have applied for extension of time to tin successor Court i.e., viz., the Munsiff''s Court.

(2) The Misc. application to the Court of the District Judge does not disclose under which law it was made, nor the order of the learned District Judge says under which provision of law the time was extended.

(3) Learned counsel for the opposite party ha argued that the above order was passed by tin learned District Judge under S. 148, C. P. C., although the order itself does not disclose it. E has not been able to satisfy me that such an order could be passed in a preemption decree. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 31C. 497 and 17 I. C. 912 as given on page 512 of Dr. Katju and Das, C. P. C. in which it has been held that "where time has been fixed an no provision is made for extension and an appeal is filed and no stay is obtained, payment after disposal of appeal and expiry of time fixed in decree would not be a valid deposit". Further reliance has been placed on the D. B. Ruling of the Punjab Chief Court, ''Gurdit Singh v. Hukam Singh 1903 Pun Re No. 53 at pp. 205 (206) (A) (as cited in ''V. V. Chitaley''s C. P. C. page 2142 of 1953 Edition) where it has been held that "in the plaintiff! default in paying the purchase money within to time allowed, the suit should be dismissed, thought the decree does not contain a specific provision to that effect".

(4) I am quite in agreement with the above findings. I hold, therefore, that extension of time I ordered by the learned District Judge after about 2 years of the termination of period prescribed by the trial court on a Misc. Application of the DH was without jurisdiction. Under the circumstances of the case this petition is allowed with cost to parties.

Revision allowed.