' The facts leading to the instant revision petition in brief are that the respondent sought to pre- empt the land in dispute on the basis of his superior right of pre-emption. He applied under section 149, C.P.C. For extension of time for making up the deficiency of the court-fee. He was also granted time twice for depositing 1/5th of the pre-emption money. This revision petition has been grounded on the plea that the extension of time granted for the deposit of 1/5th of the pre-emption money was illegal and the learned trial Court had acted with material irregularity.
2. The learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Bahawalnagar had ordered the respondent to deposit 1/5th of the pre-emption money upto 3rd February,1981 and to make up the deficiency of the court-fee within 15 days on 15th December,1980. On the same date Khan Muhammad the respondent filed an application that he had supplied sugar-cane to the Sugar Mills Bahawalnagar and could not recover its price and the extension of time may be allowed. The learned trial Court extended time for depositing 1/5th of the preemption money. On 2nd February,1981, i,e, before the time fixed for the deposit of the said amount, Khan Muhammad made another application that he was able to arrange for the deposit of Rs,6,200 and could not recover the sale price of his sugar-cane and that he may be allowed to deposit the remaining Rs,5,000. An extension of time was granted upto 28th February, 1981. On 28th February,1981, the respondent came to the Court a bit late on account of rain and he requested that a sum of Rs,5,000, the balance of 1/5th of the pre-emption money may be permitted to be deposited with the Civil Nazir. The said permission was also granted.
3. Ordinarily a pre-emptor should be ready with the money. In Niaz Ali v. Ibrahim P L 0 1976 Lah.1057 it was held that the extension in the deposit of 1/5th of the pre-emption money should not be granted unless good cause is shown. Similarly in Riaz Ahmad Khan v. Faiz Muhammad Khan PLD 1978 B.J. 85 it was laid down that the time for depositing Zar Panjam should not be extended in the absence of the vendee.
4. In the instant case notices were issued to the vendee-petitioner and as he was not served ex parte order had to be passed. The reason for seeking an extension for the deposit of 1/5th of the pre-emption money was that the pre-emptor was yet to recover the price of his sugar-cane from the Sugar Mills Bahawalnagar and the pre-emptor was allowed to deposit the balance of the said money with the Civil Nazir as on account of rain, the pre-emptor had come a bit late and he could not deposit the said amount in a bank or the treasury. Good cause was shown by the pre-emptor for the extension of time. In Malik Hidayatullah v. Murad Ali Khan PLD 1971 SC 69 it has been clarified that the Court is competent to extend time either on application (oral or written) by party or even suo motu where justice so demands. In this manner, the learned trial Court was invested with the discretion to grant time for depositing 1/5th of the pre-emption money. He has not committed any illegality or material irregularity in the grant of the extension of time.
5. It may also be noted that this revision petition was filed on 15th August,1981 whereas the order, dated 28th February,1981 was assailed. The petitioner has not been able to satisfactorily explain this delay. I, therefore, see no merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same. I however, make no order as to costs.