' AKHTAR HASAN, J.-- This Regular First Appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated the 27th of November, 1980, of the learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Okara, passed in a composite order, whereby not only the appellant/pre-emptor's application for seeking extension of time for depositing the 1/5th pre-emption amount was dismissed, but also his plaint was rejected under section 22(4) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act.
2. In his suit for pre-emption of land sold ostensibly for a sum of Rs.5,00,000 the appellant-plaintiff was directed by order dated 4-10-1980 to deposit 1/5th thereof amounting to Rs.1,00,000 by or before 29-10-1980. He made an application the same day to convert the order into one for furnishing security on the ground that he had no money to arrange the deposit. The application was dismissed summarily holding that failure to arrange the cash deposit was no ground and further that it was not supported by any affidavit. The appellant preferred a revision against the order but the same was dismissed. He then made an application for extension of time to make the deposit pleading that he would need more time to collect some amounts due to him from his debtors. The application was resisted by the respondents-vendees. The trial Court dismissed it taking the view that the right of pre-emption being predatory the appellant should have arranged the deposit in time and that he was trying to prolong the suit without being able to meet this essential requirement.
3. Nothing substantial was urged against the impugned order. The mere fact that on the very day of institution of the suit, the appellant filed an application seeking permission to furnish a security bond instead of making cash deposit of the 1/5th of pre-emption amount revealed to a large extent that he was not keen to pursue it in right earnest. The learned trial Court was perfectly justified in placing reliance upon a few authorities in support of the view that the right of pre- emption being piratory, no indulgence could be shown to the appellant in the context of his failure to make the cash deposit. Dismissal of his application for that relief should have cautioned the appellant to arrange the deposit, but then he took another chance of making an application to extend the time for cash deposit of the amount on the ground that he had yet to collect his debts from various account holders. He should ha a known the weak nature of the suit and arranged money for depositing the 1/5th of the ostensible price before filing the suit. The ground urged was very vague particularly when neither any debtor nor the amount due from him was specified. We do not find if the discretion allowed to the trial Court by subsection (4) of section 22 ibid was exercised in any manner arbitrarily. Making applications one after the other on the part of the appellant was held to be male fide and wel pre-eminently agree with this conclusion.
4. There is no merit in the R.F.A. And the same is dismissed with costs.