' SHEIKH AZMAT SAEED, J.---This civil revision is directed against the order dated 15-2-2005 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 5-1-2005 was dismissed.
2. Facts necessary for adjudication of the lis at hand are that respondent filed a suit to pre-empt sale in favour of the present petitioner dated 18-9-1980 which was decreed ex parte on 6-7-1982.
The trial Court while decreeing the suit directed the respondent to deposit Rs,15,000 the preemption money inclusive of Zar-e-Panjam by or before 19-9-1982. It was directed in the said judgment and decree that if said amount was not deposited by the respondent, suit shall stand dismissed.
Petitioner filed an application for setting aside ex parte decree which was accepted on 2-10-1982 subject to payment of cost of Rs,50. Petitioner ,did not pay the said cost. During the aforesaid period it appears that respondenti did not deposit preemption money inclusive of Zar-e-Panjam as directed by *judgment and decree. On 10-6-1984 petitioner sought to withdraw his application for -setting aside ex parte decree. However, the trial Court rejected the application on the ground of nonpayment of costs. ,Respondent filed an application seeking extension of time to deposit pre- emption money inclusive Zar-ePanjam which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 24- 1-1987. Said order was challenged by respondent in civil revision before an Additional District Judge, who accepted the same by extending the time for deposit of the said amount up to 18-9-1987. Said order of the revisional Court was assailed by petitioner through writ petition before this Court which was accepted setting aside the order of the revisional Court. Being aggrieved, respondent filed civil appeal before the apex Court which was accepted and order of the revisional Court was restored vide judgment dated 24-3-1999 in C.A. 977 of 1994. Whereafter, respondents sought issuance of warrant of possession through execution of the decree of pre-emption. The Executing Court proceeded therewith and in this behalf passed an order dated 5-1-2005, against which, petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by means of order dated 15-2-2005 sought to be impugned herein.
3. Counsel for the parties have been heard and the record appended herewith perused.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view. Of the order of the apex Court the matter could only be adjudicated upon by fresh trial and the decree could not be executed before conclusion of said trial.
5. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the contentions raised on, behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that judgment and decree having not been set aside still continues to hold the field, and is being rightly executed by the executing Court.
' Perusal of the chequered history of the case would reveal that ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner and his application for setting aside the same was accepted subject to payment of cost, which was not deposited and petitioner instead sought withdrawal of his application, which prayer was turned down and the application rejected. Said order it appears was never challenged by the petitioner and thus it attained finality. Respondent had also not deposited pre-emption money inclusive of Zar-e-Panjam and had sought extension in time, which was eventually granted by revisional Court. Order of the revisional Court was set aside by this Court which order was successfully challenged before the apex Court by respondent and the "We are thus fully satisfied that this appeal must succeed and we, accordingly, allow the same with costs, set aside the order of the High Court and restore that of the revisional Court. The suit should now be taken up for hearing and disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Let the record be sent down immediately. Costs to follow the event. If the appellant-preemptor had not already deposited the pre-emption money, he is allowed to do so within three months from today."
7. Above quoted observations of the apex Court make it clear and obvious that the order of the revisional Court extending time for payment of pre-emption money stands restored, as a consequence whereof, respondent has been granted time to deposit the said amount. Matter of setting aside of ex parte decree or otherwise was not the subject-matter of the lis before the revisional Court, this Court or the apex Court, as is borne out from the order of the apex Court, referred to hereinabove. And the said order does not set aside the ex parte decree, as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, the ex parte decree still holds the field and I hold that the same is being executed justifiably. The order impugned has been passed with lawful authority and jurisdiction and being in consonance with law and judgment of the apex Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity and jurisdictional defect.
8. For the foregoing facts and reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same accordingly in the terms highlighted ibid.