1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---The petitioner, who was a pre-emptor, was required to deposit the pre- emption money amounting to Rs,30,000 before 16-2-1970. The mode of this payment was varied by the learned trial Court to the extent that the petitioner was allowed to deposit Rs,10,000 in cash and the balance of Rs,20,000 by furnishing a security bond. The pre-emptor deposited the cash amount of Rs,10,000 but the security bond furnished in relation to the balance of Rs,20,000 was insufficiently stamped, whereupon the respondent/ vendee prayed for rejection of the plaint under section 23 of the N.-W.F.P. Of the Pre-emption Act. This prayer was granted and the order of the learned Trial Court rejecting the plaint under section 23(4) upheld right upto the High Court. This Court too, by its order, dated 21-4-1986 refused to grant leave to appeal against the above orders. Hence this petition for review of this Court's order dated 21-4-1986.
2. ' Mian Younis Shah, in support of this petition for review, relied on section 42(2) of the Stamp Act, 1899, which provides:-- "(2) Every instrument so endorsed shall thereupon be admissible in evidence, and may be registered and acted upon and authenticated as if it had been duly stamped, and shall be delivered on his application in this behalf to the person from whose possession it came into the hands of the officer impounding it, or as such person may direct."
3. (Underlining is ours)
4. According to the learned counsel the effect of the words underlined above is that when the insufficiently stamped document has been duly stamped it relates back to the date of execution of the document. Hence even if the insufficiency in the stamp duty is made up after the settlement of issues since its effect would be to make the document liable to be acted upon from the date of its execution, the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that the deficiency was made up after the settlement of issues.
5. ' We cannot accept this submission. In the first place, it was not raised when the petition for leave was heard and disposed of by us on 21-44986 and secondly the interpretation of subsection (2) of section 42 of the Stamp Act now being advanced would nullify the express provisions of subsection
(4) of section 23 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act which commands that lift the plaintiff fails within the time fixed by the Court to make the deposit or furnish the security ... His plaint shall be rejected ..." and it is the provision of this law that has to be given effect to in the disposal of the present suit.
6. ' It was next submitted that full reasons were not given for refusing to grant leave because presumably the reasons given by the High Court had found favour with this Court. This is, indeed, a correct reading of our order. Hence the learned counsel attempted to show that the reasons given by the High Court are not correct.
7. ' In our impugned order we have already agreed with the reasoning of the High Court and may add that this reasoning is consistent with the view taken earlier by this Court in Ch. Zulfiqar Ali v. Mian Akhtar Islam and another PLD 1967 SC 418 and Niaz Muhammad Khan v. Mian Fazal Raqib PLD 1974 SC 134.
8. ' There is, therefore, no ground, for reviewing our earlier decision. Finding no force in this petition for review it is accordingly rejected. No costs.