' DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Impugned herein are the judgments of the two learned Courts below, the trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner on 17-7-2008 and the appeal Court dismissed his appeal on 18-12-2008.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondent is dead and wants to bring his legal heirs on record. However, this petition is still at the stage of motion hearing and when no notice has been issued to the respondent, therefore, there is no need to implead his L. Rs.
3. Learned counsel requested for adjournment to prepare the brief but he has already filed the petition from the brief, which he was having in his possession, therefore, adjournment is disallowed.
Moreso, when revision is a matter in between the High Court and, subordinate Court and this Court has to see as to whether any of the essential conditions contained in section 115, C.P.C. Are attracted due to any illegality or irregularity committed by the subordinate Courts.
4. The respondent/pre-emptor deposited 1/3rd of the pre-emption money which was mentioned in the suit mutation as is evident from the order of the trial Court, dated 17-7-2008. However, learned counsel contest this point on the ground that the pre-emptor has not deposited 1/3rd of the sale consideration shown in the mutation but less amount, however, even the Court of appeal has formed the same view and if there was any error in this regard on the part of the trial Court or of the appeal Court, he petitioner should have applied for review of the judgment which remedy was available to him.
5. True that deposit of .1/3rd of the sale consideration clearly ascertainable from the record is mandatory for the pre-emptor but when this fact is made a disputed one by the defendant, then it is to be ascertained after recording evidence but that process can only be conducted at the trial stage and not at pre-trial stage. The impugned judgments, therefore, do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity to attract revisional jurisdiction of this Court hence this petition is dismissed.
Anyhow, the petitioner still have a remedy to repeat the application if at any stage of the trial, the amount of sale consideration is established to be more than that which has been tentatively determined by the Courts below at this stage.