1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--The petitioners, who are tenants, succeeded in a suit filed for pre- empting the possession of 85 Kanals and 3 Marlas of land in village Thatti Seyedan, Tehsil Pindigheb, District Attock. The decree, however, provided for the payment of purchase price as under:-- "Within 45 days" (before 10-2-1984)
2. Theyhowever, deposited the purchase price on 11th of February, 1984, as 10th of February, being a Friday, was a close holiday. Thereafter on 20th of May, 1984, they moved an application before the trial Court in which it was prayed that the last date be read as under:- "Before 10th of February, 1984" be corrected to read "11 February, 1984"; As the last day of limitation expired on 10th of February, 1984, which was a Friday, the trial Court declined to accede to this request as in its opinion the prescribed date clearly stipulated "as before 10-2-1984", which could not be extended. This order was upheld in revision and so also by a Member, Board of Revenue, as in his view there was no ambiguity in the order and for that reason it was not liable to be corrected.
3. In a writ petition brought to impugn this order, a learned Judge in the High Court laid emphasis on the words namely, "before 10th of February, 1984", and held that the last day by which the petitioners could deposit the purchase price was 9th of February, 1984 and not 10th of February, 1984 and that the petitioners not having done so failed to comply with the orders of the trial Court.
4. The learned Judge further held that the extension of time under section 148, C.P.C. Wasth discretionary and that the discretion having been exercised justly there was no scope for interference.
5. To us it appears that the words in bracket, i.e., "before 10th of February, 1984" are inconsistent with the earlier words namely, "within 45 days" as the words within also includes the last day, that is, "10th of February, 1984". And as that day was a holiday, the petitioner could get the benefit of it by depositing the amount on the next working day. Be that as it may, as the suit was dismissed by a subsequent order which was not challenged in appeal, the success o this petition, in our view, will be futile as that order now holds the field.
6. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.