' The petition is addressed against an order of the learned Sub-Judge, Bhimber, recorded on 9th May, 1984, whereby prayer of the petitioner not to attest the security bond, furnished by the plaintiff-respondent, on the said date of hearing, was declined and security bond already furnished by the plaintiff-pre-emptor in compliance with the order of the Court, was attested.
2. Mst. Bashir Begum, plaintiff-pre-emptor, brought a suit for possession by virtue of prior right of purchase in the suit land. On 11th June, 1983, she was ordered by the Court to furnish security bond equal to the probable" value, on or before the Ilth June, the next date of hearing. The plaintiff, in compliance with the order of the Court, presented the security bond in the Court on the next date of hearing but due to the absence of the Presiding Officer, the security bond, though placed on the record, was left unattested. On the next date, the vendee-petitioner objected to non-attestation of the security bond and sought dismissal of the suit for want of non-compliance with the order of the Court. After hearing the objection, the trial Court framed an issue to that effect on 2 the February and ordered that the finding on the validity of the security bond shall be given alongwith the decision of the cue. However, on 9th May, 1984, while deciding the question of amendment of written statement, the learned Sub-Judge, attested the security bond. This was objected to, by the vendee but the objection was overruled.
3. At this stage, the dispute confines to the attestation of the security bond. Section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act (as in force in Azad Kashmir) enjoins upon a Court to require the plaintiff to deposit in Court a sum equal to one-fifth of the probable value of the land or property, or to give security to the satisfaction of the Court, for the payment, if required, of a sum not exceeding such probable value, within such time as the Court may fix in such order, in every suit of pre-emption, at or at any time, before the settlement of issues_ In compliance with the provision of this section, plaintiff was asked to give security of the amount of the price of the suit land on or before the next date. In compliance with the order, the plaintiff furnished security bond within the stipulated period but as the Presiding Officer was on leave on the said date, the bond could not be attested. Non- attestation of the bond was again, objected to and dismissal of the suit was desired as a penalty of non-compliance with the order of the 'Court. The question of compliance or non-compliance is still sub judice as the Court has yet to decide the same. - At present, as shown earlier, the controversy pertains to attestation o security bond. The attestation of security bond on the relevant date o subsequent to it, is La controlled strictly by the statutes The law contemplate that the trial Court shall require the plaintiff to give security to its satisfaction within stipulated period. The plaintiff in a pre-emption case, is placed uncle an obligation to give security to the satisfaction of the Court and act of the attestation of security bond being the sole discretion and responsibility of the Presiding Officer, is not within the control of the plaintiff Thus, on account of absence of Presiding Officer or closing of the Court, or for some other genuine reason, non-attestation of bond, by itself, cannot render it to penalize a the plaintiff. In the instant case, plaintiff positively discharged the obligation by giving security bond within the stipulated period. As on the recant date, the Presiding Officer was on leave, as such security bond could not attested. Thus, an omission of attestation of security bond cannot be deem the liability of the plaintiff. The plaintiff did everything in his power and control and discharged the obligation. The act of attestation of the document not being within his competence, cannot be attributed negligence or an commission on his part. Moreover, a document requiring attestation in absence of restrictions or limitations placed upon it, cannot be refused its attestation at any stage by the competent authority. In the present case, the Presidio Officer was justified to attest the bond. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to satisfy that the act of attestation of security bond, in any manner, was a departure to the prescribed law or deviation from the accepted rule of justice.
4. In this view of the matter, the petition being devoid of force, is hereby dismissed.