1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J: --Facts leading to this appeal by leave briefly are that respondent filed a suit for pre.-emption in the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Pishin on 8-7-1974. It is an admitted position that there is no statutory enactment on the subject of pre-emption in Baluchistan and the suit is to be governed by the Islamic principles on the subject of pre-emption. The Assistant Commissioner passed an order requiring the respondent to deposit 1/4th of the sale price as security which respondent failed to do. Consequently the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the suit by order dated 31-8-1974. The respondent challenged this order some five years later on 1-10- 1979 in an appeal which was accepted by the Additional Commissioner, Quetta on 14-1-1980 on the ground that the interim order of the Assistant Commissioner directing the respondent to deposit 1/4th of the sale price as security was not warranted by law and it being void the ultimate order of dismissal of suit on the basis of non-compliance was also void and could be set aside at any time.
2. Appellant filed a revision application against this order before the Board of Revenue which was however dismissed: on 12-3-1983 and appellant's Constitution Petition was also dismissed.
3. Leave to appeal was however granted on certain points noticed in the leave granting order dated 1-6-1982 but at the hearing today the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the impugned order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 31-8-1974 was an illegal order and not a void order and the appeal should have been filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
4. We find from the record that alongwith the appeal respondent also filed an application for condonation of delay and the learned Additional Commissioner, Quetta consciously reverted to this aspect of the case and condoned the claim and allowed the appeal and in result remanded the case to the lower Court "for fresh trial. This order was upheld by the Member, Board of Revenue and also by the High Court by the impugned judgment. There is therefore no force in this contention and the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.