' Mst. Nasreen Akhtar respondent instituted a pre-emption suit against Saleh Muhammad vendee/petitioner on 5th January, 1982 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rahimyar Khan. The learned trial Court on that date directed that defendant be summoned for 18th February, 1982 and the plaintiff/respondent shall deposit zar-e-panjam as envisaged by section 22(1) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act before the next date of hearing. On 1st February, 1982 the plaintiff/respondent moved an application praying that instead of the cash payment she be allowed to furnish personal security for the said amount. The learned Court ordered that the application should be put up on the date of hearing (i,e, 18th February, 1982). The plaintiff/respondent then moved another application on 14th February, 1982 praying that time for depositing zar-e-panjam be extended. The learned trial Court directed the application be put up with the file on 15th February, 1982. On that day the learned Court extended the time till 25th March, 1982 without giving notice to the vendee/ petitioner. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed an application on 26th February, 1982 praying that the time for depositing zar-e-panjam has been extended without any sufficient cause having shown by the respondent and therefore, the suit of the respondent for not depositing zar-e- panjam by 18th February, 1982 in accordance with Court's direction was liable to be dismissed. In the meantime the Presiding Officer who passed the order of extension was transferred and the application was then decided by his successor who vide his order, dated 22nd May, 1983 dismissed the application observing that an order passed by his predecessor could not be reviewed by him.
2. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders, the vendee/petitioner has come in revision before this Court, praying that order, dated 15th February, 1982 by the learned trial Court extending time for depositing zar-epanjam be set aside as it was passed without notice to the petitioner. Reliance has placed on Riaz Ahmad Khan v. Faiz Muhammad Khan (1).
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondent and also gone through the record with their assistance.
4. From the above narration, it is quite clear that the impugned order was passed in the absence of the petitioner without giving any notice to him, whereby the original order, dated 5th January, 1982 was altered and the time for depositing zar-e-panjam was extended. Having gone through the impugned order, I find that the time for depositing zar-e-panjam has been extended in a mechanical way without conscious application of mind and that too without notice to the vendee/petitioner who had a right to be heard before granting the extension of time. I stand fortified in this view by the dictum laid down in Niaz Muhammad ) PLD 1978 B J 85 ' Khan v. Mian Fazal Raqib (1) and Riaz Ahmad Khan v. Fiaz Muhammad Khan.
5. In the circumstances I find that order under revision passed by the trial Court as clearly violate of law laid down in the above-quoted precedents and it is well settled that an order passed in derogation to the dictum laid down by the superior Courts tantamount to acting illegally and with material irregularity. For these reasons I accept this revision and vacate the impugned order with the direction that the learned trial Court shall decide the application dated 14th February, 1982 afresh after hearing both parties in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
(I) PLD 1974 SC 134