1. ' The petitioner herein purchased suit land measuring 11 Marlas ostensibly for Rs, 1,65,000 by means of Mutation No, 14267 attested on 21-9-1983. The respondent herein pre-empted the sale transaction. Firstly the suit was pending in one civil Court and the respondent was directed to deposit the amount of Rs, 65,000 as pre-emption money before 12-11-1983 for which date the case was fixed before the Court. Notice was also issued to the defendant for that date. Meanwhile the case on the application of the respondent was transferred to another Court by order of the District Judge dated 8-11-1983. The respondent was directed to appear before the second Court on 10-11- 1983. On the said date, the respondent moved an application before the Civil Judge for the extension of time to deposit the preemption money. Notice in this behalf was given to the defendant for 12-11-1983 but the same was returned unserved. On 12-11-1983, the respondent was granted one week more time for the deposit of the preemption money. He was thus to deposit the amount on or before 19-1171983. Meanwhile the respondent moved yet another application for permission to deposit Rs, 10,000 in cash and to furnish security for the remaining amount. 'The said application was rejected by order, dated 13-11-1983. As the respondent could not deposit the pre- emption amount until after one week time granted to him, the learned Civil Judge by invoking the provision of subsection (4) of section 23 of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act. 1950 rejected the plaint by order, dated 19-11-1983. By this order the respondent was aggrieved, therefore, be filed appeal in the District Court and a learned District Judge accepted the same by order dated 10-12-1983 and directed the respondent to deposit Rs, 50,000 in cash and to furnish security for the remaining amount. Hence this revision application by the petitioner with a prayer that the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge may be set aside and that of the learned trial Judge be restored. The respondent has also filed revision application bearing C. R. No, 92 of 1984 submitting that his prayer before the learned Additional District Judge was for the deposit of Rs, 10,0(0 in cash and to furnish security for the remaining amount but he was directed to deposit Rs, 50,000 which is wrong and so the same may be corrected and he may be allowed to deposit Rs, 10,000 in cash and to produce security bond for the remaining amount. By this order I will dispose of both the revision applications. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not denied that the respondent was first directed to deposit Rs, 65,000 and on his application he was granted time for the deposit of the pre-emption money. He was again on his request granted extension for one week more. He did not comply with the order and shifted to another position by filing an application that he may be allowed to deposit Rs, 10,000 in cash and to furnish security for the remaining amount. His application was rejected by the learned Civil Judge by order, dated 13- 11-1983. He observed in this behalf that the suit land is situate within the Municipal limits in such locality that it should, in his view, fetch Rs, 1,10,000 as the probable value of the suit land. Thus he directed the respondents to deposit Rs, 65,000 as pre-emption money. It is conceded that the respondent did not agitate this order by way of further proceedings and kept quiet. Thereafter when the case came up before the learned Civil Judge, he rejected the plaint on the ground that the respondent has not complied with the order directing him to deposit the pre-emption money.
2. This aspect of .The case was not considered by the learned Additional District Judge and while allowing the appeal of the respondent, he observed that the amount of Rs, 65,000 was huge amount and the learned Civil Judge should have granted sufficient time to the respondent for arranging the said amount. He, therefore, held that the order passed on 13-11-1983 by which the Civil Judge rejected the application of the respondent for permission to deposit Rs, 10,000 in cash and to furnish security for the balance amount was illegal and as the order of 19-11-1983 by which the plaint of the respondent was rejected was based on the aforesaid order of 13-11-1983, the latter order too was illegal.
3. ' By going through the material on record, I feel that the learned Additional District Judge has not appreciated the law of pre-emption in a situation obtaining in the present case. It is clear from the record that the respondent first sought permission to deposit the amount which was granted and thereafter shifted to adopt another strategy by filing an application for permission to deposit Rs, 10,000 in cash and to furnish security for the remaining amount. The said application was rejected by order, dated 13-11-1983 and until 19-11-1983, the respondent did not move in revision before the District Judge. Thus he should have complied with the order of the Court directing him to deposit the pre-emption money within the time extended for that purpose.. But as he chose to keep quiet, the learned Civil Judge was, therefore, obliged to reject his plaint under subsection (4) of section 23 of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950 by order, dated 19-11-1983. This aspect of the case is not controverted before me by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent.
4. The learned Additional District Judge has allowed himself to work on conjectures when he observed that the pre-emption amount was huge amount and the respondent should have been given sufficient time to arrange its deposit. I have to observe that legally the right given to the pre- emptor is a piratical right to defeat a valid bargain and if he preempts it, he should be equipped with the observance of the formalities laid down for him by the pre-emption law. It cannot be supposed that he is not a resourceful man and as presently he cannot afford to observe the formality of complying with the order of the Court to deposit the preemption money, he should be given the indulgence of liberty to arrange the pre-emption amount as and when he is able in that respect. If this proposition is laid down a law, it will mean that the Court will have to wait until the pre-emptor is able to arrange pre-emption money before the case proceeds to trial. In the present case, it cannot he said that the respondent was not allowed indulgence by the Civil Judge with respect to the deposit of pre-emption money. Extension was granted by the Court on two occasions to the respondent on his request. He first filed an application for the extension of time to deposit the pre-emption money which was granted. He was again granted one week more time.
5. This time he filed another application for permission to deposit some amount in cash and to produce security for the remaining amount but the said application was rejected. There was, therefore, left no option for the Civil Judge but to reject his plaint under subsection (4) of section 23 of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950 by order, dated 19-11-1983 when B the pre-emptor did not avail of one week time granted to him for the second time for the deposit of pre-emption money.
6. When his latter request was not granted, he should have deposited either the pre-emption amount or to prefer a revision before the District Judge . It shows that he allowed himself to impose his will on the Court. In the circumstances, the respondent is to blame himself, as he was not prepared to comply with the order of the Court.
7. ' The learned Additional District Judge has also observed in support of the impugned order that the sale consideration of Rs, 1,10,000 was not the probable value of the suit land. He referred to Mutation No, 14062, dated 18-5-1983 on the basis of which the respondent had purchased seven Marlas in the same locality for Rs, 30,000. He observed that sale consideration of Rs, 1,10,000 fixed by the learned Civil Judge as the probable value of the suit land measuring 11 Marlas would not be proper, when land measuring 7 Marlas was purchased by the respondent for Rs, 30,000 in the same locality four months earlier. The learned Additional District Judge has overlooked that the Civil Judge had directed the respondent to deposit Rs, 65,000 and as according to section 23(1) of the N.-W. F. P.
8. Pre-emption Act, 1950, the respondent would be required to deposit in Court the probable value of the suit land in cash or to furnish security, the sum of Rs, 65,000 for 11 Marlas of the suit land which the respondent was directed to deposit as pre-emption money would be fair amount when 7 Marlas was sold for Rs, 30,000 in the same locality. Thus the sum of Rs, 65,000 which the respondent was required to deposit in Court as pre-emption money would be fair amount and can be regarded as the probable value of the suit land and for that matter the order of the learned Civil Judge was obviously proper and reasonable.
9. ' On the view of the matter that I take, the revision application bearing .No, 63 of 1984 succeeds. The result is that the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge is set aside and that of the learned Civil Judge is restored. The revision application bearing No, 92/84 filed by the respondent automatically fails and stands dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.