' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---This judgment will dispose of R.F.A. No,446 of 2007 and R.F.A. No,16 of 2008 as the common questions of law and facts are involved in these R.F.As.
2. This R.F.A has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-11-2007 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Rahim Yar Khan.
3. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the appeal are that the appellant filed a suit for specific performance of oral agreement with the contention that that appellant purchased the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.32,00,000, out of which the appellant paid Rs.2,00,000 as earnest money, while the balance amount of Rs.30,00,000 was paid to the respondents in shape of prize bonds.
4. That in pursuance of oral agreement to sell, the appellant/petitioner deposited Rs.12,000 and Rs.6000 respectively /on account of purchase of stamp paper. He also obtained the copies of Register Haqdaran Zameen so that sale-deed in favour of the appellant could be executed, but the defendants/respondents refused to execute and complete the sale-deed in favour of appellant who was forced to file a suit for specific performance of agreement. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed more emphasis on Exh.P5 purportedly a receipt of Rs.30,00,000 received by the defendants/respondents.
5. This suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement.
6. Learned trial court after framing of issues and recording of evidence of the parties, decreed the suit with the observations that the plaintiffs have proved the agreement between the parties which was admitted by the defendants themselves. However, the payment of consideration amount is not proved. The suit is hereby decreed in favour of plaintiffs against the defendants subject to the payment of consideration amount of Rs.32,00,000 into the court within a period of 30 days of the passing of this judgment and decree, otherwise, the suit would be deemed as dismissed.
7. That 'the above judgment and decree of learned trial court was passed on 23-11-2007 and the petitioner/plaintiff was obliged to deposit Rs.32,00,000 on or before 23-12-2007 but the appellant failed to comply with the order of learned trial court.
8. The appellant filed the instant appeal on 18-12-2007 which was fixed before this court on 31-12- 2007 and another order was passed by this court on 31-12-2007 directing the appellant to deposit Rs.32,00,000 with the Deputy Registrar (Judi) of this court so that the operation of impugned judgment and decree may be suspended, but till today, the appellant failed to comply with the order of learned trial court or this court.
9. That at this stage, the appellant has moved a C.M. For extension of time to deposit the amount of Rs.32,00,000 in pursuance of order dated 31-12-2007.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed this civil miscellaneous and has contended that this petition for extension of time to deposit amount of Rs.32,00,000 as well as the main appeal is liable to be dismissed because the appellant/petitioner has not complied with the order of learned trial court as well as this court.
11. Arguments heard. Record perused.
12. The record shows that vide judgment and decree dated 23-11-2007, learned trial court decreed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff with a direction to deposit the consideration price of suit-land within a period of 30 days i.e, till 23-12-2007. The appellant/petitioner filed appeal on 18-12-2007 which was returned to the appellant/petitioner to remove objections within 3 days. The appellant/petitioner re-filed the appeal on 26-12-2007 which was placed before this court on 31-12-2007 and on the said date, the operation of the impugned judgment and decree was suspended subject to deposit of Rs.32,00,000/- with the Deputy Registrar (Judi) of this court, but the appellant/petitioner did not comply with the order of this court and the appeal was fixed on 25-5-2009 to decide C.M. No,1/2007. The case was repeatedly called, but no one entered appearance on behalf of the appellant/petitioner and as a consequence, C.M.
No,1/2007 was dismissed for non-prosecution.
13. That on 22-6-2010, the appellant/petitioner moved the instant C.M. No,827/2010 for restoration of stay application dismissed in default on 25-5-2009 along with application under section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
14. Para Nos.2 and 5 are relevant for the disposal of this case which are reproduced as under:- "(2) That thereafter on 25-5-2009 the above titled appeal was fixed for hearing but the petitioner as well as counsel for the petitioner could not appear before the Hon'ble Court, resultantly the stay application in the main appeal was dismissed due to non-prosecution by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 25-5-2009.
(5) That on 9-6-2010 in compliance of the order dated 31-12-2007 passed by this Hon'ble Court the petitioner approached to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Hon'ble Court for the deposit of Rs.32,00,000, who inspect the file and on 21-6-2010 the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) told the petitioner that the above titled stay application has already been dismissed in default."
15. The appellant/petitioner has not firstly complied with the judgment and decree of learned trial court and he did not deposit the consideration price of suit-land. Consequently, on 23-12-2007 the suit stood dismissed. Thus the instant appeal is without any bearing and entire proceedings are nullity in the eyes of law because the appellant/petitioner neither applied to the learned trial court or to this court for extension of period to deposit the consideration price of Rs.32,00,000.
16. That after 23-11-2007 at the first time, on 26-6-2010 the appellant/petitioner applied for extension of time to deposit the amount of Rs.32,00,000 which application is mis-conceived and is nullity in the eyes of law. The attitude of appellant/petitioner is very much evident that the instant applications are nothing but a mere mischief just to pressurize and blackmale the answering respondents. Similarly, the appellant has badly failed to advance any cogent reason for the condonation of delay.
17. As a result of above discussion, all the three applications are without merit which are dismissed and as a consequence, the R.F.A. No,446 of 2007 is also dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent (appellant of R.F.A. No, 16 of 2008) did not press the said R.F.A, therefore, same is also dismissed.