Law: General Rules of Interpretation

Section: 2(5)

Law: Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899)

Section:

(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913), S. 22(1)-Order for deposit of cash or security-Can be varied at its option by Court Such option could however be exercised only before settlement of issues-Issues not settled-Court could replace its previous order for deposit of cash with one for security. It is open to the Court to vary its orders for depositor security as the case may be, but this option can be exercised before the settlement of issues after which, the stage for exercise of option comes to an end. As issues had not been settled till then in this case, it was open to the Court to vary its previous order on exercise of fresh option and replace the same for security. Ch. Zulfiqar Ali v. Mian Akhtar Aslam and another P L D 1967 S C 418 rel. Said Muhammad Khan v. Muhammad Saeed Khan P L D 1968 Azad J & K 85 and Zaman Mehdi Khan v. Hayat Khan A I R 1938 Lah. 452 distinguished. Mian Akhtar Islam v. Ch. Zulfiqar Ali and another P L D 1965 Lah. 394 ref. Sardar Zorawar Singh and others v. Jasbir Singh and others A I R 1938 Lah. 606 held not applicable. Per Mohammad Yusuf Saraf, J.- (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 22(1)-Section 22(1) not intended to be used as vehicle of oppression-Intention merely to ensure knocking at Courts by bona fide claimants only-Court alone need be satisfied that plaintiff will ultimately pay costs, if any, and such satisfaction can he secured either by demand of cash or of security bond-Court has every right to vary its order and can substitute bond for cash. This section was enacted by the Legislature not to be used as a vehicle of oppression but only to ensure that only bona fide claimants knocked at the Courts for relief. The power, therefore, rests with the Court which has to satisfy itself that the plaintiff will ultimately pay the costs, if any, and this satisfaction can be secured either by a demand to deposit cash or by a demand to furnish a bond. The satisfaction being of the Court itself, it has every right to vary its order so as to substitute bond for cash because it does not place the plaintiff at a disadvantage and at the same time, it does not in any way affect the substantive rights of the defendant. Raja…