MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.-For the purpose of this judgment pleaded facts need not to be narrated.
Suffice it to say that the respondent purchased the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/- vide registered sale-deed dated 07-2-2000. On 17-5-2000, the appellant filed a suit for possession of the suit land by pre-emption. The suit was put up before the learned Trial Court on the same day. After receiving office report the case was taken upon presence of counsel for appellant. The suit was registered. Notices were issued for 15-6-2000 and the appellant was directed to deposit 1/3 of the said sale-price, which was calculated as Rs. 2,66,667/- till the said date. When the case came up for hearing on 15-6-2000 the learned counsel for appellant put in appearance, the respondent was also represented and his counsel filed his power-of-attorney. The learned counsel for appellant filed an application for extension of time for deposit of the said amount. The learned Trial Court heard the counsel for parties and fixed the case for order in the later part of the day. At this stage, the learned counsel for appellant stated that the case be adjourned to enable him to obtain receipt for deposit of the amount from his client and the application was not pressed. It was accordingly disposed of. The case came up for hearing on 19-6-2000. On this date of receipt was filed alongwith an application for extension of time. This application was contested and was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 29-9-2000 and the suit was dismissed under Section 24(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. First appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi Bahauddin on 19-7-2005.
2. The learned counsel for appellant has cited the cases of Mst. Mumlikat Begum' v. Malik Nasrullah (2004 S.C.M.R. 1290), Ghulam Mustafa Khan v. Ashiq Hussain and others (2003 C.L.C. 1661), Imran Ahmad and another v. The District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan and 2 others (2003 C.L.C. 1597) and Muhammad Ilyas and 4 others v. Munshi Khan (2003.C.L.C. 1815) to contend that since the appellant has established his bona fide on record by making deposit within time fixed by the Statute i.e. 30 days from the date of institution of the suit, therefore, a case for extension of time is made out and the plaint ought not to have been rejected.
3. The respondent was served, however, none has turned up on his behalf.
4. I have gone through the Trial Court's record with the assistance of the learned counsel for appellant. In the plaint the ostensible sale-price as shown in the sale-deed was not questioned. In para.4 of the plaint it was stated that the appellant had acquired the knowledge of sale on 082- 2000 and he made first "Tab" in the course of exercise of his first superior right of pre-emption. He served notice of "Talab-i-Ishhad" under registered cover A.D. On 17-2-2000.
The suit was filed on 17-5-2000, which came up on the same day and the learned Trial Court in compliance with the Provision of Section 24(1) required the appellant to deposit. 1/3rd of the sale- price, which was worked out and was conveyed to his counsel. The direction was that the said amount was to be paid upto 15-6-2000. In the first instances an application was filed on 15-6-2000 in the first an application was filed on 15-6-2000 stating that due to other business the amount could not have been deposited and the time be extended. This application was withdrawn as not pressed. Admitted position is that the amount had not been deposited prior to the said date, but was deposited on 17-62000. In the application filed on 19-6-2000 for extension of time it was stated that the suit was filed on 17-5-2000 while the order for deposit of the amount was made on 18-5- 2000. According to the appellant he was under the impression that the amount was to be deposited within 30 days and his counsel also informed him accordingly and he deposited the amount on 17-6-2000.
5. The contents of said application are patently -false The suit, as noted above, was filed on 17-5-2000. It was taken up by the learned Trial Court on the same day and the direction was issued on the same date and not on 18-5-2000. So far as the said impression being entertained by the petitioner is concerned the same is falsified by the earlier application filed by his counsel. Both the applications were drafted by Mr. Muhammad Yamin Babu, Advocate who had filed the plaint on behalf of the appellant. So far as the said judgments cited by the learned counsel for appellant are concerned the same are not attracted as in the said cases the amount was deposited within 30 days, the Court, itself, either did not pass an order or it was passed at a latter point of time and it was held that the parties cannot suffer for the fault of the Court. In the present case the order for deposit has been passed in complete accordance with the provision of Section 24(1), the ground being urged for extension of time are, prima facie, incorrect. It cannot, therefore, be said that the learned Courts below .Have committed any illegality while passing the impugned judgment and decree. The R.S.A. Is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. The record of lower Court be immediately sent back.