1. ' Revision petition by the plaintiff was against the appellate judgment of lower Court dated 8-4- 1992 confirming on appeal that of trial Court passed on 28-9-1991 dismissing the pre-emption suit for failing to deposit one-third of sale-price in Court in tune fixed by it.
2. ' Facts in the relevant context briefly set out are Ghulam Qadir sold some land to respondents on 30-4-1991 for sale consideration of Rs,1,92,000. Plaintiff claimed pre-emption in respect of this sale on the grounds of `Shafi Sharik', `Shaft Khalit' and `Shafi Jar' and after fulfilment of required `Talabs' and issuance of requisite notice filed a suit for possession for the enforcement of pre-emptive rights in the Civil Court at Lodhran on 3-9-1991. On 5-9-1991, trial Court ordered that the suit be registered and summons issued to defendants for 28-9-1991 and one-third of the sale-price in the sum of Rs,64,000 deposited by or before the date of hearing fixed in the suit. On 26-9-1991, plaintiff applied to the trial Court for permission to deposit one third of purchase price and Challans duly filled in for the deposit of the amount were annexed to the application. On the same day, trial Court accorded its permission. However, the amount could not be deposited in time by the plaintiff because of a mishap in his house on the night intervening 26th and 27th of September, 1991. On the date of hearing fixed in the suit on 28-9-1991, plaintiff applied for further extending the time for deposit of Zar-i-Soem. Application did not specify the proposed period of extension. It was stated in the application that as the amount was arranged late, it could not be deposited on 26-9-1991 and 27-9-1991 being a closed day on account of Juma-tulMubarik, the amount could not be deposited. It was further stated that on the night of 27-9-1991 a theft took place in the house of the plaintiff and alongwith other articles of the house, the amount representing Zar-i-Soem was stolen by unidentified thieves and since the hearing of the suit was fixed for today, copy of the F.I.R. Could not be had and produced. Without inquiry into the facts stated in the application, trial Court dismissed the application on the short ground that it had never extended time for deposit of Zar-i- Soem and simultaneously dismissed the pre-emption suit. Plaintiff preferred an appeal from the order of the trial Court. Appeal also failed in the Court of learned District Judge. It was held that in absence of a provision authorizing extension of time, impugned order was unexceptionable.
3. Thereupon, a revision was filed in this Court. It was urged that the trial Court was obliged to hold an inquiry for ascertaining the truth of the matter and without a proper probe into the disputed facts, trial Court could not have summarily dismissed and turned down the application for extension of time. The contention had little substance. Report for the alleged theft was lodged at the Police Station on 11-10-1991. This was much after the date fixed for deposit of one-third of the purchase price. Contents of the F.I.R. Conflicted with those of the application filed for extension of time.
4. Therefore, the plea taken and excuse offered for extension of time was incredible. Even otherwise, it was a usual plea very often readily available for rescuing from such awkward situations. Plaintiff neither demanded an inquiry on the plea taken by him nor was it necessary in the circumstances of the case. Further, unlike the earlier provisions in section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, section 24 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, A contained no express provision authorizing the Court to extend the time beyond thirty days from the date of filing of pre-emption suit. Pre-emption suit was filed on 3-9-1991. An order for deposit of one-third purchase price was made on 5-9-1991.
5. Plaintiff was required to deposit the above amount by or before 28-9-1991. Admittedly, deposit of the amount was not made by the appointed day. Though, the trial Court was empowered to extend the time till the outer limit of thirty days reckoned from the first day of filing of the preemption suit and there were yet few days available to it for extending the time, yet the Court was not obliged to give extension in routine without a sufficient cause being made out for it. It was in the discretion of the trial Court either to extend or not to extend the time. It was not bound to extend the time till the expiry of outer limit of thirty days in all circumstances. Pre-emption was but a feeble right and the pre-emptor seeking to exercise it was bound to perform and fulfil its requirements meticulously.
6. Any failing in this behalf was at his grave risk and could turn out fatal to his success as proved in the present case. In a pre emption case decided at the principal Seat, I had an occasion to examine section 24 of Punjab Pre-emption Act wherein I was of the view that despite omission of a provision for extension of time, cases could be visualized where a genuine occasion could arise for the Court to assist a litigant for retrieving him out of the morass inwhich he had fallen because of events and circumstances beyond his control. There could be many events and circumstances, one being an act of the Court and the other a vis major. No such situation arose in the instant case for the Court to examine and express on. In my view, plaintiff fell a trap of his own weaving and could not successfully urge anything against his failing in the pre-emption suit. No principle of Islamic Law assisted him in this behalf. Civil revision was without substance. Therefore, it failed in limine.
7. Revision rejected.