IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL 3024 OF 1984 DECIDED ON : 24-07-2008 Mohinder Singh ....Appellant Versus Kishan Chand &others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr.R.S.Mittal, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Atul Gaur, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.S.C.Kapoor, Senior Advocate,with Mr.Harminderjit Singh, Advocate, for the respondents AJAY TEWARI, J (ORAL) This is an appeal filed by unsuccessful vendee against the concurrent decrees of both the Courts below, decreeing the suit for possession by way of pre-emption filed by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 filed civil suit No. 422 for possession by way of pre-emption of the sale of 1 plot measuring 27'x28' in the abadi deh and 1/6th of total agricultural land measuring 1 bigha 1 biswa pukhta situated in village Jasrana, tehsil Gohana, district Sonepat, which was sold by Maman Singh in favour of the appellant. Another Suit No. 133 dated 17-03-1981 was filed by Prithvi Raj son of vendor Maman Singh. The trial Court upheld the status of both the plaintiffs but granted superior right of pre-emption to Prithvi Raj being son over respondent No.1 who was a co-sharer. Consequently, he decreed the suit of Prithvi Raj and dismissed the suit filed by respondent No1.. However, Prithvi Raj did not deposit the pre-emption amount within time fixed for the said purpose and his suit --2-- stood dismissed. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal which has been allowed and the suit filed by respondent No.1 was decreed. Mr.R.S.Mittal, learned Senior counsel for the appellant has stated that only point of law which arises in this appeal is whether in the absence of an appeal filed by respondent No.1 in Civil Suit No. 133(supra), the appeal filed by him in Civil Suit No.422 would be hit by the principles of res judicata. In my view, since Civil Suit No. 133 filed by Prithvi Raj stood dismissed on account of his inability to deposit the pre-emption amount, there was no occasion for respondent No.1 to file an appeal in the said suit No.133. In this view of the matter, the question of law which has been raised, is answered against the appellant and in favour of respondent No.1. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with, however, no order as to costs. Sd/- [Ajay Tewari] Judge 24-07-2008