' ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.---Brief and essential facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the respondents/defendants.
The respondents/defendants appeared before the Court and submitted an application for deposit of Rs, 9,36,40,000 in the Court. The application was contested by the petitioner/plaintiff by submitting replication. On 28-1-2013, the learned trial Court sent a local commission to the respondents/defendants for recording their joint statement which was recorded. After hearing the arguments over compromise, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff on 2-2-2013.
2. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 1-2-2013, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred an appeal. The learned Additional District Judge-II, D.I.Khan on 20-7-2013 delivered judgment and decree with the condition to the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs,9,30,40,000 within a month, hence the instant revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a huge amount was involved, therefore, the time granted i,e, one month for deposit of the same by the learned appellate Court was insufficient. He argued that such a huge amount could not be arranged easily and sought extension in order to arrange the amount. It was argued that agreement dated 26-4-2012 provided a period of four months, but the respondent/ defendant did not receive the amount despite serious efforts by the petitioner and due to the conduct of the respondent, who was reluctant to receive the amount, civil suit was filed by the petitioner. He argued that possession of the property is still with the respondent and no benefit has been derived by the petitioner through the property so far. He contended that the learned appellate Court has wrongly laid the condition of dismissal of suit in case of non-payment of the decretal amount within a period of one month. He prayed for the payment of amount through bearable instalments and for extension of time.
5. As against that, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner failed to make the payment within the prescribed period of four months, agreed between the parties through admitted agreement dated 26-4-2012. He further contended that in case of failure of payment, the petitioner filed a suit in order to linger on the matter, which was rejected by the trial Court and appeal against the same filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide impugned order, however, a period of one month was given for deposit of the decretal amount but so far the petitioner has failed to deposit the same which shows his conduct that he is not interested to fulfil the terms and conditions of the agreement as well as the directions given by the Court I have given my deep thought to the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their valuable assistance.
6. On 16-8-2013, during the course of arguments, it transpired that the petitioner had not affixed ad volarum Court fee in the instant petition as well as before the civil Court although a sum of Rs,15,000 was affixed on the memorandum of appeal, therefore, counsel for the petitioner was directed to deposit ad volarum Court fee of Rs,15,000 each before this Court as well as civil Court.
The said order has been complied with by the petitioner.
7. Perusal of the record reveals that an agreement between the parties was arrived at on 26-4-2012 vide which the property was transferred in the name of the petitioner and a sum of Rs,9,30,40,000 was agreed to be paid within four months. Para-4 of the plaint reveals that the petitioner could not manage the same amount and contended that he has contacted the respondent but no proof to this effect has been annexed with the plaint. However, he has filed the suit on 8-11-2012, which was contested by the respondents but later on an application was moved on 19-1-2013 whereby he agreed to transfer the property in the name of the petitioner, subject to payment of remaining amount of Rs,9,30,40,000. The learned trial Court despite the application moved by the respondents, admitting the decree in favour of the petitioner on payment of amount, rejected the plaint on 1-2-2013. The petitioner assailed the said order before the learned Additional District Judge-II, D.I.Khan which was disposed of through the impugned order however, the order of the trial Court was set aside and in the light of the request of the respondents made through application before the trial Court, to decree the suit of the petitioner, the appellate Court decree the suit of the petitioner, subject to payment of remaining sale consideration within a period of one month, failing which, the suit shall stand dismissed. The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not hold water, as he was unable to mention the provision of any enactment for extension of time in such scenario. The arrangement of huge amount would not be a valid ground, for extension of time. The petitioner availed four months time in terms of agreement dated 26-4- 2012 and further time granted by the learned' appellate Court for a 'period one' month on 20-7- 2013,' which is going to expire today i,e, 19-8-2013. Though there is no merit A in the petition to substantiate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner nor he was able to meet the query put by the Court and kept on repeating the argument that a huge amount is involved, which cannot be taken as a ground for extension, however, for the ends of justice, this petition is partially allowed and the petitioner is directed to deposit the decretal amount within a period of fifteen days, which is to be reckoned from today i,e, 19-8-2013. In case of failure of petitioner to make payment of the said amount within the extended time of fifteen days, the instant petition shall stand dismissed.