SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J. - This revision calls in question the legality of the order dated 13.6.1995 and 25.6.1995 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Lodhran, whereby order dated 6.6.1995 was reviewed and plaintiff-respondent was directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- as Zar-e-Soem instead of Rs. 2,66,667/- and order dated 3.4.1996 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lodhran, whereby appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed.
2. Ch. Fayyaz Ahmad, plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for possession through pre-emption in respect of land measuring 23 kanals and 8 marlas situated in the village Chak No. 347/W.B. Tehsil Dunyapur, District Lodhran, which was sold by one Riaz Ahmad to Munawar Hussain-petitioner vide mutation No. 736, dated 8.2.1995.
2. - The suit was instituted on 6.6.1995 and learned Trial Court on the said date directed the respondent- plaintiff to deposit of Rs. 2,66,667/- as 1/3rd of sale price by 11.6.1995. On 18.6.1995, learned Trial Court observed that Zar-e-Soem was not ascertained and no order had been passed regarding its deposit. Therefore, paragraph No. 2 of order dated 6.6.1995 regarding the deposit of 1/3rd of sale price by 11.6.1995 was taken OF the i.e. On 25.6.1995, learned Trial Court after going through the affidavit and documents annexed with application made under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 fixed ostensible/probable sale price of the suit land as Rs. 3,0, 000/- and directed the plaintiff-respondent to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- as 1/3rd of the sale price by 5.7.1995.
The petitioner-defendant being aggrieved by order dated 25.6.1995 preferred an appeal before learned Additional District Judge, Lodhran, which was dismissed on 30.4.1996. Hence, the present revision petition.
3. Respondent did not appear in spite of his service through proclamation in the newspaper, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that learned Trial Court has specifically directed the respondent-plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,66,667/- as 1/3rd of sale price till 11.6.1995 vide order dated 6.6.1995. Thereafter, learned Trial Court was not competent to pass any order on the application made by the plaintiff-respondent under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 and to reduce the amount of Zar-e-Soem. Learned Trial Court committed material irregularity while reviewing its own order arbitrary and learned Appellate Court also failed to appreciate this aspect of the case. Furthermore, respondent- plaintiff has not proved the Talabs in accordance with law, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed summarily.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon "Saad Ullah Khan, etc. Vs. Sheikh Ghulam Qasitri'
(PLD 2001 Peshawar 47), "Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Continental Engineers Ltd., etc." (NLR 1992 Civil 435) and "Muhammad Anwar Khan and others \/s. Ch. Riaz Ahmad' (PLD 2002 S.C. 491).
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record.
6. The suit was instituted on 6.6.1995 and on the said date, learned Trial Court had directed the respondent- plaintiff to deposit 1/3rd of the sale price of Rs. 2,66,667/- by 11.6.1995, and in paragraph No. 12 observed as under:-- "Therefore, let notices be issued with regard to application for reduction of 1/3rd of sale price, to respondents against the deposit of process i.e, registered envelope and the copies of the petition, etc. Within two days for reply and arguments for 11.6.1995. "
On 18.6.1995, learned Trial Court had observed that Zar-e- Soem has not been ascertained, therefore, paragraph No. 2 of order dated 6.6.1995 is taken OF the i.e. Thereafter on 25.6.1995, learned Trial Court after perusal of the affidavit and documents annexed with the petition made under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 observed that probable sale price of the suit land comes to be Rs. 3',00,000/- and directed to deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- as Zar-e-Soem.
8. Admittedly, an application under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 for ascertaining the probable value of the suit property was made along with suit, which was entertained on 6.6.1995 and notice thereof was given "tp the petitioner-defendant as apparent from paragrah No. 11 of the said order mentioned above. When the said application was pending before learned Trial Court, the order for the deposit of Zar-e-Soem as Rs. 2,66,667/- was passed inadvertently.
9. Under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 in every suit for pre-emption, the Court shall require the plaintiff to deposit 1/3rd of the sale price of property in cash within 30 days of filing of suit and in case sale price so mentioned appears to be inflated, the Court shall require deposit of 1/3rd of the probable value of the property. The learned Trial Court after perusing the documents annexed with the petition under Section 24 supra fixed probable price as Rs. 3,00,000/- and directed the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- as Zar-e-Soem accordingly. Zar-e-Soem was directed to be deposited within 30 days and no time beyond 30 days was given in this case.
10. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Trial Court was not competent to alter order dated 6.6.1995. Admittedly, application under Section 24 of Pre-emption Act, 1991 was pending "before learned Trial Court on 6.6.1995 and order for the deposit of same was passed inadvertently. Therefore, question of review of any order, did not arise at all. In case titled "Saad Ullah Khan, etc. Vs. Sh. Ghulam Qasirrt' (PLD 2001 Peshawar 47), it was held that learned Trial Court was not competent to extend the time for the deposit of remaining decretal amount. In the instant case, Zar-e-Soem was directed to be deposited within prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, said case-law is not directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of present case. Similarly facts of case titled "Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Continental Engineers Ltd., etc." (NLR 1992 Civil 435) were quite different and do not apply to the facts and circumstances of present case. Case titled "Sultan Ahmad and others Vs. Riasat AH and other' (1988 CLC 2162) also relates to non- deposit of preemption amount in terms of decree, whereas in the instant case suit is yet to be decided so the above-said case-law is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of present case.
11. The petitioner has assailed the legality of order dated 6.6.1995, 25.6.1995 and 3.4.1996 and there was no issue before both the Courts below that whether respondent had fulfilled the required Talab in accordance with law or not. Therefore, provision of case-law titled "Muhammad Anwar Khan and others Vs. Ch. Riaz Ahmad' (PLD 2002 S.C. 491.) is not attracted at this stage.
12. Learned Civil Judge has inadvertently directed the plaintiff-respondent to deposit Zar-e-Soem of Rs. 2,66,667/- in spite of the fact that application under Section 24 of the Pre-emption Act was pending before him and notice thereof was also issued to the present petitioner- defendant on the said date. Thereafter, learned Trial Court relying on the documents placed by the plaintiff with the application supra, fixed probable price of land in accordance with Section 24(1), 2nd proviso and directed to deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- as sale price. The aforesaid proviso to Section 24(1) is mandatory in nature. According to the said proviso, if a sale price mentioned in the sale-deed or mutation or the price so mentioned appears to be inflated, the Court shall require deposit of 1/3rd of the probable value of the property. The learned Trial Court has not committed any material irregularity or illegality while exercising the powers conferred under Section 24(1), proviso (2). The impugned order dated 25.6.1995 is in accordance with law and learned Additional District Judge vide impugned order dated 3.4.1995 has rightly maintained the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any infirmity or illegality in both the impugned orders passed by competent Courts of law, which are hereby maintained.
Resultantly the instant civil revision is without merit and same is hereby dismissed.