ORDER M. JAVED BUTTAR, J.- This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 1.2.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby Execution Second Appeal (E.S.A. No. 27/1972) instituted by petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 4.A was dismissed. On the same date, vide a separate order, the learned Judge dismissed the application (C.M. No. 643-C/97) of petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 and respondents Nos. 7 and 8, under Order-I, Rule 10, C.P.C. For becoming a party to the above-said appeal. The application was moved by them claiming that vide Mutation No. 339 attested on 12.3.1962, their predecessor Sardar Manzoor Ahmad Khan had purchased the suit land from the provision - Mn 1 Tahir Din on the basis of said transaction they prayed that they be impleaded as. Appellants in the ESA.
2. The above-said appeal before the High Court, arose out of execution proceedings of a decree passed on 22.12.1961 whereby the suit filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 for possession of suit land through pre-emption was decreed subject to payment of a sum of Rs. 37,929/- on or before 14.3.1962. The amount was deposited on 12.3.1962. On 9.4.1964, petitioner No. 1 filed an application for amendment of the decree on the ground that the amount payable under the decree had not been properly calculated while determining the amount of mortgage over a portion of suit land and it was averred that the amount if correctly calculated would come to Rs. 42,782.38. The Trial Court finding the error to be arithmetical/clerical, allowed the application on 1.2.1965 without any notice to the decree- holders. It was, however, directed that the extra amount of Rs. 4,853,38/- shall be deposited by the decree-holders within one month of the receipt of notice of the said order. The decree-holders, upon receipt of the notice or acquisition of the knowledge, deposited the said extra amount and filed the execution petition. The judgment-debtors filed objections to the effect that the above-said extra amount had not been deposited within the stipulated time. The decree- holders, on the other hand, in their written reply took up the plea that they were minors and a report had been got fabricated on the notice issued under the order dated 1.2.1965 to the effect that their next friend had refused to receive the notice and that the moment the knowledge was acquired, the extra amount was deposited in the Court. The Executing Court after framing the necessary issues recorded the evidence produced by the parties and vide its order dated 4.5.1970, rejected the objections. The appeal of judgment-debtors was dismissed by District Judge, Muzaffargarh on 13.7.1971. Their Second Appeal was dismissed by Lahore High Court with reasons on 21.6.1986.
However, through a later order dated 29.6.1992, considering the said order to be an order dismissing the appeal in default, the appeal was restored. During the pendency of the second appeal, petitioners Nos.
2 to 7 and respondents Nos. 7 and 8 moved the above-said application (C.M. No. 643-C/1997) praying to be impleaded as appellants in the ESA on the basis of purchase of the suit land by their predecessor Sardar Manzoor Ahmed Khan. The said application, as mentioned above, was dismissed on 1.2.2000. It was held that upon the payment of the decretal amount, under the decree on 12.3.1962, the title accrued in favour of the pre-emptors/decree-holders on the said date, under Order XX, Rule 14(1 )(b), C.P.C. As it was a preemption decree, thus there was no question of any transfer of the suit land by petitioner No. 1 Tahir Din or anybody else to Sardar Manzoor Ahmed Khan, the predecessor of the applicants of C.M. No. 643-C/1997. It was also held that the case was squarely hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. As regards appeal, the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below, on the basis of evidence available on record, that the decree-holders had not been served with the notice dated 1.2.1965 amending the decree, were confirmed, holding that there was no misreading or non-reading of evidence by the Courts below while recording their findings. It was also held that the price initially fixed in the decree dated 22.12.1961 was agreed to by both the parties at a later stage, therefore, it was open to doubt as to whether, in the circumstances, a case for correction of decree under Section 152, C.P.C. Was made out.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully examined the relevant record and the impugned judgment whereby the second appeal was dismissed. We have also examined the order of the even date whereby the application for being impleaded as appellants was dismissed. We are of the view that they are unexceptionable. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment. The pre- emption decree was passed as far as back on 22.12.1961. The decretal amount as determined by the Court was deposited within time on 12.3.1962. The decree was amended, without any notice to the decree- holders, and the decretal amount was enhanced by Rs., 4,853.38 payable by the decree-holders within one month of the receipt of notice of the said order. All the three Courts below have consistently held that in these lengthy protracted proceedings, the judgment-debtors had failed to prove that decree-holders had not deposited the above-said extra amount within stipulated period because service of the notice relied upon by the judgment-debtors had not been sufficiently proved through reliable evidence. The learned counsel has failed to persuade us to a different conclusion because no misreading or non-reading of the evidence has either been pointed out or found by us. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and the leave is refused.