' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 7-7-1985, whereby the revision petition filed by Muhammad Sher and others has been dismissed.
2. The respondent's suit for possession of certain land through pre-emption was decreed by the trial Court on 27-1-1970 on the condition of his depositing Rs, 40,000 by 27-3-1970. The respondent did not deposit the whole of the preemption amount and filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge. It was during the pendency of the appeal that the respondent deposited a sum of Rs, 22,000. The appeal of the respondent was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 5-12- 1970 but he was granted time to deposit the remaining sum of Rs, 18,000 up to 5-1-1971. The respondent in fact deposited the remaining sum of Rs, 18,000 on 19-1-1971. The decree was assailed by the petitioners in the High Court but the same was dismissed, whereafter the respondent/pre- emptor approached this Court but his appeal bearing No, 82 of 1976 was dismissed on 20-6-1984 and he was allowed one month's time to deposit the pre-emption amount. In the course of execution of the decree, the respondent took over possession of the land. The petitioners also approached the executing Court where they challenged the decree on the ground that since the entire pre-emption amount was not deposited on 5-1-1971 the suit automatically stood dismissed.
This ground was turned down by the executing Court and the appeal as well as the revision petition filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the Additional District Judge and the High Court on 4-7- 1985 and 7-7-1985, respectively.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the orders of the Courts and we do not find any merit in the petition. It is true that the whole of the pre-emption amount was not deposited by the respondent on 5-1-1971 but the same was done on 19-1-1971. The deposit beyond 5-1-1971 was, however, rectified by this Court through its order dated 20-6-1984 when the pre-emptor was allowed one month's time to deposit the remaining amount.
4. Thus finding no force in the petition the same is dismissed.