orders dated 02.11.1994, 23.11.1994 and 07.12.1994. It is necessary for us to record our view on the said zimini orders as well. There can be no dispute about the fact that the parties to litigation are always oblivious of the zimini orders passed by the Courts. The same are neither shown to the parties. There is really never any occasion for a party to examine zimini orders. The zimini orders relied upon by the landlords are in fact orders by which proceedings were adjourned from time to time. These orders of adjournment are (unlike the orders relied upon by the rival party) not signed either by the petitioners-tenants or the respondents-landlords. The petitioner, Mansa Ram, would have obviously contested the zimini orders dated 02.11.1994, 23.11.1994 and 07.12.1994, had he been aware of the fact that the Presiding Officer had recorded therein that he would pay batai, in terms of the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Panipat, whereas as a matter of fact, he had already paid batai, interest and costs. The aforesaid payment had also been acknowledged even by one of the landlords, as has been noticed herein above. The aforesaid zimini orders, in our view, cannot have the effect of unsettling the express statements made at the hands of the rival parties, namely, Mansa Ram and Mohd. Farooq on 02.11.1994. The former asserted the payment of lagaan, interest and costs, and the latter, acknowledged the receipt of the same subject to some deficiency. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are satisfied that Mansa Ram paid lagaan, interest and costs on 02.11.1994 i.e. on the same day, it was assessed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Panipat. Since lagaan, interest and costs, had been paid within 15 days for the payment thereof, in terms of the provisions of Section 14-A (i) of the
