1986 PLP 790 (CLC)

Facts giving rise to this civil revision are that the respondent, Mst. Mukhtar Begum filed a suit against the petitioner, Ghulam Nabi, for possession of certain land through pre‑emption. Land in dispute was ostensibly sold for Rs.6,60,

000. It was alleged by the respondent that the sale had, in fact, taken place for Rs.5,45,

000. The Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, who was seized of the suit, directed the respondent to deposit Rs.1,32,000 as Zar‑e‑Panjam (1/5th of the ostensible sale price) till 5th September, 1982. On 2nd September, 1982, however, the respondent made an application for extension of time for deposit of Zar‑e‑Panjam. It was stated by her that her main source of income was agricultural produce of the land owned by her and since her rice crop had not matured she had not been able to deposit Zar‑e‑Panjam. Her application was opposed by the petitioner. The learned Senior Civil Judge, however, by his order, dated the 13th September, 1982 extended time for deposit of Zar‑e‑Panjam and also ordered the respondent "to deposit Rs.66,000 (Rs. sixty‑six thousand) as Zar‑e‑Panjam and also to furnish personal security for the rest of the amount i.e., for Rs.66,000" by 21st September, 1982. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, the petitioner has come up in revision in this Court.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Senior Civil Judge had not passed a legal order inasmuch as he could either direct the respondent to deposit Zar‑e‑Panjam or allow her to furnish security for the whole of the sale price, but he could not permit her to deposit Rs.66,000 as Zar‑e‑Panjam and also furnish personal security for Rs.66,

000. It was also urged by him that there was no sufficient cause for extending time for deposit of Zar‑e‑Panjam.

3. In reply, it was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that there was nothing wrong with the order of the learned Senior Civil judge which, according to him, was passed by him in appreciation of a genuine difficulty pointed out by the respondent.

4. Subsection (1) of section 22 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913, which is relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition, reads as follows:‑‑

"

22. 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 require 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". In these provisions of law, there is word "or" which occurs immediately before the word "require". The said word "or" clearly indicates that has discretion to direct deposit of Zar‑e‑Panjam or require the Court the plaintiff to furnish security. If the first course is to be adopted, the plaintiff would be directed to deposit a sum not exceeding 1/5th of the sale price. If the second course is to be followed, the plaintiff would be required to furnish security for whole of the sale price. The Court cannot direct the plaintiff to deposit Zar‑e‑Panjam and also furnish security. Further, if security is required to be furnished by plaintiff, it would be for whole of the sale price and not for a part thereof. As indicated above, in the instant case, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the petitioner to deposit Rs.66,000 as Zar‑e‑Panjam and also directed her to furnish security for Rs.66,000 although the sale price was 6,60,

000. His order is, therefore, in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) of section 22 of the said Act. In other words, the order under challenge suffers from an illegality calling for interference by this Court.

5. With the passage of time, the difficulty pointed out by the respondent in the matter of the deposit of Zar‑e‑Panjam before the date originally fixed by the learned Senior Civil Judge has disappeared. I would, therefore, like her to deposit Zar‑e‑Panjam as initially directed by the learned trial Court. There were three days with the respondent to deposit Zar‑e‑Panjam when she made application for extention of time. In the circumstances of this case, therefore, I am inclined to allow her that much time for making the requisite deposit.

6. I have been informed by learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent has already deposited Rs.66,000 in pursuance of the order under revision. If it is so, she will have to deposit another sum of Rs.66,000 only.

7. In view of what has gone above, I accept this revision petition, set aside the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge and direct the respondent to deposit Rs.1,32,000 less the amount already deposited by her, with the learned trial Court, by 26th October, 1985. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. I have explained to learned counsel for the respondent that the deposit ordered by me shall be made by the respondent by 26th October, 1985 even though a copy of this order does not become available to her or the learned trial Court before the said date. H. B. T.??????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision petition accepted.