' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24-2-2004 passed by learned Judge in. Chambers of the Peshawar High Court, Bench Abbottabad, whereby Civil Revision No,2 of 1997 filed by respondents was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 19-9-1996 of the learned District Judge, Batagrani, was set aside, consequently the suit of appellants was dismissed.
2. Briefly, stated, facts giving rise to the filing of instant appeal are that respondents purchased land measuring 378 Kanals, 1 Marla out of Khasra Nos.840 to 850 and 971 situated in the area of Bateela, Tehsil Allai vide Mutation No,51 attested on 23-2-1982. The appellants filed suit for the enforcement of their pre-emptive rights against the respondents. During the pendency of the suit, the matter was patched up between the parties on 29-7-1986 and on the statement of appellants, the trial Court passed a decree in favour of appellants with the direction that the remaining amount of Rs,81,987.65 will be deposited in the Court by appellants within a period of one month failing which the decree shall be null and void. The appellants failed to deposit the pre-emption money within the stipulated period but on 23-9-1986 made an application to the District Judge Mansehra, .Camp Batagram for allowing them to deposit the same which-was rejected. On 23-9- 1986 being barred by time The said order was not challenged and the same attained finality.
Appellants thereafter challenged the consent decree, dated 29-7-1986 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kohistan at Batagram, before the learned District Judge, Mansehra Camp Batagram, which was dismissed vide judgment, dated 3-3-1987. Appellants then filed. Review petition on 31-10-1986, which was accepted on 14-3-1988. The respondents filed Writ Petition No,131 of 1992 before the learned High Court, which was allowed, vide judgment dated 18-4-1992-and the matter was remanded to the learned District Judge with the direction to decide the matter on merits. During the pendency of this appeal, appellants filed review petition before the trial Court for reviewing its order, dated 29-7-1986, which was accepted vide order, dated 27-10-1992. Feeling aggrieved, respondents filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Batagram, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19-9-1996. Respondents then approached the learned Peshawar High Court by filing Civil Revision No,2 of 1997 which was accepted vide impugned judgment. Hence this direct appeal filed by the appellants.
3. We have heard Sh. Wazir Muhammad, learned Advocate Supreme Court for appellants and Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondents and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the failure of the appellants to deposit the pre-emption money within the period fixed by the trial Court would not result into the dismissal of the suit as the learned trial Court had not used the word "dismissal" but had stated that the decree would be null and void.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents contended that the appellants were bound to deposit the pre-emptaion money within one month but they failed to do so and the inescapable legal consequence of such failure was the dismissal of the suit of appellants. He further contended that as the matter was pending adjudication before the learned district. Judge after the remand by the learned High Court, therefore, the trial Court had no power to entertain the review petition of the appellants.
6. In this case the trial Court while passing the consent decree had clearly observed that in case the appellants failed 'to deposit the preemption money the decree would be null and void. There is no denial to the fact that the balance pre-emption money was not deposited by appellants within the time fixed by the trial Court. No reason has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants for the delay in depositing the amount. As stated above, appellants submitted application before the District Court on 23-9-1986 for deposit of pre-emption Money, which was rejected on the same day on the ground that it was barred by time It is also admitted fact that neither any application for condemnation of delay was filed nor any request for extension of time was made.
7. For what has been discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment is based on valid and sound reasons and is entirely in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.