MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J. - Vide Mutation No. 2209 attested on 24.6.2003 the petitioner purchased the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 2,75,000/-. On 2.9.2008 the respondent fifed a s~uit for possession by pre-emption. His case was that the land has, in fact, been sold for Rs. 2,50,000/-. He claimed to be a Shafi Shari, Khalit and Jar. Performance of talbs was also pleased. The petitioner filed a written statement. The suit came up before the learned Trial Court on 2.9.2003 when a direction was issued to the. Respondent to deposit a sum of Rs! 83,334/- within 30 days by way of 1/3rd. This was done. On 21.6.2004 the respondent himself Tiled an application that the Court has passed an incorrect order and sought permission to deposit Rs. 8,333/-. The petitioner did not object and the amount was accordingly deposited. Issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties were framed. All the issues including .The matted of ^superior right and talbs were answered in favour of the respondent while it was held that the land has been sold for Rs.
2,75,000/-. After answering all the issues in the manner afore-said, the learned Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit on 2,4.2008 on the ground that the respondent has failed to deposit the entire 1/3rd (described in the judgment as Court-fee) within 30 days. The first appeal was filed by the respondent. The petitioner did not at all question the findings on the issues. The appeal had been allowed by the learned A.D.J., Mandi Baha-ud-Din, on 7.10.2008 and the suit has been decreed subject to payment of the balance amount of consideration.
2. Learned counsel contends 'that since the respondent knew' that the amount of consideration mentioned in the Mutation is Rs. 2,75,000/-, it was his own duty to have himself deposited the 1 /3rd accordingly within the time prescribed by law.
3. I have examined the copies of the records. The history of the case has been stated above. There is no denial, that the learned Trial Court directed the respondent to deposit a particular amount as.1/3rd. It was deposited within the prescribed time. The amount was short of the 1/3rd of the ostensible price. Neither the Court nor the petitioner ever objected. It was the respondent himself who pointed out the mistake to the Court and sought permission to deposit the requisite amount.
This permission was granted with consent of all concerned including the Court and the petitioner.
The amount was, in fact, deposited.
4. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel, I find it to be without any force. Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, primarily lays down a duty upon the Court to require the plaintiff to deposit 1/3rd of the sale price in cash within period as it fixed. However, the law lays down an embargo upon extension of period beyond 30 days of the filing of the suit. The Court did pass such an order and the respondent did comply with the same within the said period of time. The learned A.D.J. Has very correctly invoked the rule of "Actum Curie Nemariem' Gravabit." The civil revision accordingly is dismissed in limine.