' The respondent No,1, purchased the suit land measuring 4 Kanals and 9 Marlas, situated in Mauza Kot Khuda Yar, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot, vide registered sale-deed dated 2-9-1999. In the deed,the sale consideration of the property is mentioned as Rs,15,00,000. The petitioner on 16-12- 1999, brought a suit for pre-emption, inter alia on the ground of being a co-sharer of the property, and in unequivocal term stated in the plaint, that the value of the suit property is not more than Rs,85,000, and that with an object to defeat and prejudice the preemption right of the petitioner, it is exorbitantly mentioned as Rs:15,00,000.
2. The learned Court, when the matter for the first time was placed before it, while issuing notice to the respondent, passed an order in terms of section 24 of the Pre-emption Act, 1991, whereby the petitioner was required to deposit the 1/3rd of Rs,15,00,000, the sale consideration mentioned in the plaint. However, before the respondent could be served, the petitioner on 18-12-1999, moved an application for the correction of the order, reiterating that the actual price is Rs,85,000. The learned Civil Judge after issuing notice to the respondent on 5-1-2000, passed the order, now directing the petitioner to deposit 1/3rd of Rs,85,000. This order was challenged by respondent No,1 in revision, which was accepted and the learned revisional Court vide order dated 3-2-2000 by fixing the price as Rs,15,00,000, has directed the petitioner to deposit the 1/3rd of the same within 11 days therefrom.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the property in question is situated in a village and undoubtedly, the price mentioned in the sale-deed, is exorbitant and highly inflated, which is objected towards defeating the right of pre-emption of the petitioner. It is further stated that, though broadly it was mentioned in the plaint that the price is exorbitant, but along with the application, the petitioner had also placed on record the "Aust" of three years of the sale price of the lands in the Mauza, to establish that the average value of the land in the Mauza is Rs,11,060 per Kanal; thus, in these circumstances, the learned Civil Judge had rightly correcteu his earlier order.
But the learned revisional Court has illegally and unlawfully interfered in the matter, which has resulted in the erroneous exercise of jurisdiction and this should be corrected.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 has vehemently opposed the above and states that, when the revisional Court has 'passed an order in accordance with law, the same cannot be. Interfered in the Constitutional jurisdiction, It is further stated that the property is situated on the main Sialkot Road and its value is the same, which has been mentioned in the deed. Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, learned counsel for respondent No,1 further contends, that because the first order was passed directing the petitioner to deposit 1/3rd of Rs,15,00,000 in the presence of the petitioner, thereafter, the Court. Could not review its earlier order.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Since the very inception, the petitioner had stated in the plaint, about the inflated price recorded in the sale-deed. Obviously, this was meant that the Court should determine the probable value and thereafter pass the appropriate Order. But instead the Court passed the routine order on the first day, while issuing notice to the respondent.
This shows that the Court was not conscious and alive to the challenge thrown by the petitioner about the price mentioned in the sale-deed, and the first order was passed without the conscious application of mind, which is the judicial duty of the Court. Anyhow, this error was pointed out to the Court, at the earlier . Possible time and before the respondent could even be served or any prejudice caused to him, the Court had corrected its earlier order, but again not in a lawful manner, because in any event, it was the obligation of the Court to have determined the probable value after hearing both the sides and holding an inquiry in this behalf, if so required. But this was not done and the order suffered from a serious vice. Resultantly, the respondent No,1 rightly challenged this order in revision, however, the revisional Court instead of directing the inquiry for the determination of the probable value, accepted the amount of sale consideration mentioned in the sale-deed as the correct one and directed the petitioner to deposit the 1/3rd of that amount within 11 days. This order again is not in consonance with the law.
6. According to the clear interpretation of second proviso to section 24 of the Pre-emption Act, if the sale price mentioned in the sale-deed or mutation appears to be inflated, the Court before requiring the deposit of 1/3rd, shall determine the probable value of the property. This Obviously could only be done either on the basis of the material, which has been placed on the record by the plaintiff, or if the matter is contested by the vendee/defendant, by holding an appropriate inquiry, considering the data placed on the record by both the sides. Unfortunately, the Courts at both the levels have failed to apply the above provision, in its true and proper context. Hence these orders are not valid, which could be sustained.
7. Anyhow, as regards the objections of the learned counsel for the respondent, suffice it to say that, it is not an absolute rule that an order passed in revision, cannot at all be interfered in the Constitutional jurisdiction. In my view, where the justice demands, an exception can be taken thereto and the High Court besides Article 199 of the Constitution, can invoke its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 203 of the Constitution, to correct the orders, when are perverse, fraudulent, erroneous and have been passed either by express violation or the ignorance of any provision of law. Because the order of the learned revisional Court is of the above nature, therefore, I deem it proper to correct it in my Constitutional jurisdiction. As far as the argument, that the first order could not be reviewed by the trial Court, it may be held that it. Is not a case of review, rather the correction of an incorrect order, which the Court always has the inherent power to pass.
However, still the second order was not properly and accurately passed, because the probable price was not determined by the Court. Rather, the same price as suggested by the petitioner was taken the basis for the deposit of 1/3rd. The learned revisional Court, therefore, rightly interfered in the matter to this extent, but after setting aside the order of the learned trial Court, should have sent the matter for the determination of the probable value by the Court and thereafter for the issuance of the direction to the petitioner to pay 1/3rd thereto. Thus, the revisional Court also failed to exercise its proper jurisdiction and passed the order by taking the amount of the sale consideration mentioned in the deed as to be the probable value of the property.
' In the light of whatever has been stated above, in exercise of my writ and supervisory jurisdiction available to me under Article 203 of the Constitution, by seeing aside both the orders of the learned Additional District Judge and the learned Civil Judge, I direct of the learned trial Court to fix the probable value of the suit property after gearing both the parties and on the basis of whatever material is brought on the record by both the sides, and thereafter to redirect the petitioner to make the deposit of 1/3rd of such value or to make up the deficiency, if any amount in this behold has already been deposited by the petitioner. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 15-9-2004. The order in this behalf should definitely be passed by the Court within 15 days, and the plaintiff shall be directed to deposit or make up the deficiency in the probable value within further 15 days. The petitioner accordingly is allowed.