' ZIA-UD-DIN KHATTAK, J. Pre-emption suit filed by Ghulam Nabi, respondent was decreed by learned Civil Judge-II, Mansehra vide judgment dated 25-6-2005 on payment of Rs,1,00,000.
Appeal No,117/13 of 2005 filed thereagainst was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge-VI, Mansehra vide judgment dated 14-2-2006. After affirmation of the lower Court decree in appeal, the respondent withdrew the excess pre-emption amount. However, on revision the High Court remanded the suit for decision on merits vide judgment dated 2-10-2007. After remand, the petitioner filed an application that the respondent had withdrawn the pre-emption amount therefore, the suit be dismissed. Learned Civil Judge, Mansehra, who seized of the case, dismissed the application vide order dated 17-7-2008. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal which was treated as revision and ultimately dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Mansehra vide judgment dated 26-1-2009. Hence this further revision.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record annexed with the petition.
3. The only question falling for determination in this case is whether second revision is permissible under the law. The answer is in negative civil revision are governed under section 115, C.P.C. By virtue of subsection (3) therefore when a revision has been moved before the High Court or District Court, no further application will be entertained by either of them and by virtue of subsection (4) the High Court cannot entertain a further revision against an order passed in revision by the District Court; 1986 SCM R 1166.
4. On merits too, the case is very clear. Under subsection (2) of section 25 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre- emption Act, 1987 when a decree is passed for a lesser amount than the amount already deposited by the preemptor, the Court shall refund the excess amount to such pre-emptor. In the instant case, the decree was passed for a lesser amount than amount already deposited by the pre- emptor, therefore, he was well within his right to withdraw the excess amount.
5. In the result, this second revision being not maintainable is dismissed in limine.
Second .