The facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that Muzaffar plaintiff/petitioner brought a suit against Ali Khan etc. Respondents on 30-7-79 for the possession of the suit land through pre- emption. The learned Civil Judge passed a decree in favour of Muzaffar plaintiff/petitioner on payment of Rs.2,368/16 vide his judgment and decree dated 28-4-1981. The plaintiff/petitioner had already deposited Rs.2,000. He was directed to deposit the remaining amount within one month otherwise his suit shall stand dismissed. On 29-4-1981 the plaintiff/decree holder made an application in the trial Court in which he mentioned that the decree is passed in his favour for Rs.2,368/16 and he had already deposited Rs.2,000. He wants to deposit the remaining amount to Rs.368/16, therefore, the Civil Judge asked for the report. The concerned Moharrir reported on the reverse of the application that the decree is passed for Rs.2,368/16. The decree-holder has already deposited Rs.2,000 and now he wants to deposit the remaining amount. On receipt of the report the learned Civil Judge ordered that the decree-holder should deposit Rs.368/12 instead of Rs.368/16 (paisas four less)- on 30-4-1981. Accordingly the petitioner/decree-holder deposited Rs.368/12 on 2-5-1981 as directed by the learned Civil Judge.
2. The judgment-debtor filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower Court. The learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide his judgment and decree on 15-5-1982, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. It appears from the record that the judgment-debtor did not raise any objection in his grounds of appeal about the shortage of four paisas while depositing the pre--emption money. It was on 19-9-1982 that the judgment-debtor has submitted an application in the trial Court wherein he has mentioned that the decree in favour of decree-holder/petitioner is passed on payment of Rs.2,368/16 but he has deposited Rs.2,368/12 (four paisas less), therefore, his suit shall be considered as dismissed. The petitioner/decree-holder contested the application and submitted in his written reply that the shortage was because of the order of the Court. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned Civil Judge, Haripur accepted the application and dismissed the suit vide his order dated 5-5-1983. Muzaffar petitioner went in appeal against the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 5-5-1983 but his appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-1, Haripur vide his order dated 1-2-1984.
3. I have heard Mr. Taj Muhammad Khan, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and Fida Muhammad Khan Advocate learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on payment of Rs.2,368/16 and the petitioner had deposited Rs.2,000 in advance and for the remaining amount he made an application to the trial Court and the trial Court asked for the report from the Moharrir and the Moharrir reported that the decree-holder has already deposited Rs.2,000 and he should deposit Rs.368/12, the balance amount. On this the learned Civil Judge directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.368/12 instead of Rs.368/16 and accordingly the petitioner deposited Rs.368/12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has acted under the direction of the learned trial Court and he should not suffer for the act of the Court. He relied on PLD 1979 Pesh. 17 and PLD 1988 SC 20. In the first cited case the plaintiff/pre-emptor had deposited the pre-emption money beyond date fixed by the trial Court which was under the direction of the higher Court, therefore, it was held that plaintiff in circumstances cannot be said to have disobeyed the order of the trial Court so as to entail dismissal of his suit. This authority of Peshawar High Court is not applicable to the present case because the circumstances of the instant case are different. The second judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is also not applicable to the present case because the facts of the cited case are different from the facts of the present one. In the cited case it was held that Supreme Court possesses power to grant extension of time for deposit of such amount on filing of leave to appeal and once having granted extension and having led party to believe extension being valid and lawful for the purpose of compliance of the conditions of decree party taking advantage of such order cannot be made to lose such advantage retrospectively on ultimate disposal of petition for leave to appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner also cited 1976 SCMR 420 but the facts of this case are also different from the present one and this authority is also not applicable to the present case.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it was the duty of the petitioner to have deposited full amount of Rs.2,368/16 but as the petitioner has deposited Rs.2,368/12 (Paisas four less), therefore, he has not complied with the conditions of the decree passed in his favour by the trial Court and the judgments of the two Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or misreading of evidence which may kindly be maintained. In support of his arguments the learned counsel for the respondents produced 80 Indian-Cases 416 wherein Broadway, J. Of the Lahore High Court in Wali Mohammad and others v. Kapuria Mal and others took the view that where after the pre-emptor decree-holder had obtained possession of the pre- empted property, it was discovered that pre-emption money had been short paid by one rupee, the vendee was found entitled to the restoration of the property. In taking this view, his Lordship relied on a decision of this Court in Kanhaya Lai v. Muhammad Shafi Khan 141 P.L.R. 1913, wherein pre-emption price was short paid by one anna only and the Court had ruled that it was not a full payment and the possession of the land was restored to the vendee. This view of the Court was further approved in Rehmat Khan and others v. Nawab Khan A.I.R. 1925 Lahore 91.
6. In the present case as observed above thepetitioner/decree-holder had deposited Rs.2,368/12 instead of Rs.2,368/16, therefore, he had not complied with the order of the learned trial Court and his suit was rightly dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 5-5-1983. The petitioner knew full amount and it was his duty to have deposited the full amount. The learned Civil Judge, no doubt, had passed the order for the deposit of Rs.368/12 instead of Rs.368/16 but it was on the report of the Moharrir Civil Court and it was a bona fide mistake on the part of the learned Civil Judge and the petitioner cannot take benefit out of it. Besides it the petitioner did not make any attempt by filing an application for permission of the Court to deposit the small amount of four paisa nor he has applied for the condonation of delay. In view of the authority cited above I find myself in complete agreement with the learned Judges below. Their judgments besides being legal are also just. No interference is called for. In result civil revision fails and is dismissed with no orders as to costs.