IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHARY J:- Mst.Ghulam Jannat petitioner was arrayed as defendant in a suit for pre-emption filed by respondent in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh. The relevant facts are that the petitioner purchased land measuring 12 Kanals situated in Mouza Khangarh, Tehsil and District, Muzaffargarh from Muhammad Bakhsh for a consideration of Rs.25,000/-. The respondent filed a suit for possession invoking his superior rights of possession. The suit was decreed by Mr.Sanaullah Khan then Civil Judge, 1st Class,Muzaffargarh, vide judgment and decree dated 25th of October, 1981. The respondent was allowed the upto 1st of October, 1982, to deposit the amount of Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court assailed the same through an appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was entrusted to Mr.Zulfiqar Ali Khan,Addl:Districl Judge -I,Muzaffargarh, who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 12.6.1982.
2. The petitioner still not feeling satisfied with the result of her efforts decided to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and accordingly filed the present revision petition. The revision petition came up for preliminary hearing before Mr Justice Abdul Shakur-ul-Salam,as now My Lord Chief Justice on 11.10.1982 and was admitted to regular hearing and notice issued to the respondent. The relevant portion of admission order reads as under:- "This is vendee's revision petition for deposit of the decretal amount in a pre- -Emption suit, nearly a year's period was fixed by the trial Court. It was found unreasonable by the appellate Court but not judicially dealt with. It is contended that the respondent-pre-emptor could not be reasonably given that length of the If he is not ready to deposit the amount, he is not entitled to a pre-emption decree."
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial Court granted the respondent almost year for the deposit of the pre-emption amount of Rs.25,000/-.The order is unreasonable, capricious and arbitrary if the amount and Claim is kept in View. It is further added that although the lower appellate Court adjudged the order as unreasonable yet failed to afford any relief to the petitioner and correct the order. It was conceded that on merits the petitioner has nothing to urge.
4. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record. The order of the trial Court cannot be justified by any reasoning or logic. It is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that respondent has deposited the pre-emption amount in accordance with order of the trial Court, therefore, the present petition has become infructuous for all intents and purposes. I, therefore, dismiss this revision petition.There is no order as to costs.
5. I must observe before parting with this judgment that Mr. Sanaullah Khan, Civil Judge, while passing this order made the Court proceedings a mockery. He acted unlike a judicial officer. The conduct of the Addl: District Judge is also not above-board. He decided the appeal on 12lh of June, 1982, still did not abridge or cut-short the the to redress the grievance of the petitioner at least to some extent. He simply observed that this matter to be brought to the notice of the District Judge, Mu/.Affargarh, to ask the learned Civil Judge to be reasonable in passing such orders. This is nothing and in this way the Addl: District Judge also failed to perform his duty under the law.
6. This type of perverse,arbitrary and unrcasonables orders have to be curved otherwise people will loose all confidence in Courts of law. Therefore, let the copy of this order may be placed before My Lord Chief Justice for appropriate action deemed proper against both Mr.Sanaullah Khan, the then Civil Judge, Mr.Zulfiqar Ali Khan, the then Addl: District Judge, Muzaffargarh.