1. ' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of Peshawar High Court dated 8-5-1994 in W.P. No, 670 of 1993.
2. ' Petitioner brought a suit for possession by pre-emption of the suit land described therein against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge, Dargai exercising the power of Deputy Commissioner under PATA Regulation, on 20-3-1984. It was alleged that defendants 1 to 6 sold the suit land measuring about 25 Jaribs hearing Khasra Nos. 523, 525, 532 and 534 in Mahal Saidra Jowar- Mehrdi, Malakand Agency for a sum of Rs,40,000 and the transaction was kept secret. A sum of Rs,40,000 was alleged to be the market value of the suit land and any amount found entered in the sale-deed would be fraudulent and collusive in order to ward off petitioner's superior right of pre- emption. The learned trial Judge vide order dated 22-5-1984 directed the petitioner to deposit the pre-emption amount of Rs,20,000 within 15 days in the Government Treasury which order was complied with within time. Subsequently when defendant-vendee filed his written statement, in which it was stated that the land has been purchased for a sum of Rs,5,00,000 through a registered sale-deed, the learned trial Judge on 5-6-1984 directed the petitioner to deposit Rs,1,30,000 more in the Government Treasury within a month after the written statement. Petitioner, however, submitted an application on 25-6-1984 that he should be allowed to deposit security instead of the cash amount. The learned trial Court modified his order dated 5-6-1984 and directed to deposit Rs,20,000 in cash and to furnish security for the remaining amount vide order dated 25-5-1984. A sum of Rs,20,000 was deposited as ordered. However, there were appeal and revision and the case stood remanded with a direction to the trial Court to go through the order dated 5-6-1984 and 25- 6-1984 and to find out which of the orders should stand and also to determine liability of either of the parties for creating the conclusion. The learned trial Judge (Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan Mohmand APA/DC) in compliance with the order of remand by the revisional Court, referred to above, held that the petitioner-plaintiff had admitted as having deposited Rs,20,000 in cash and Rs,1,00,000 in the shape of security bond even then he has failed to fulfil the order of the trial Court to deposit Rs,1,30,000 more because even then Rs,10,000 remains to be deposited. That it was for the petitioner-plaintiff to have complied with the order dated 5-6-1984 in toto. That though the order was made after the framing of issues but this was because of the petitioner's application requesting for furnishing security bond instead of cash deposit. On such finding the suit was dismissed on 29-10-1989. The petitioner's appeal against the said order of dismissal was accepted by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 11-10-1990 and the petitioner was directed further to deposit the amount of Rs,10,000. The order of Additional Commissioner was challenged by the respondent-defendant in revision in the Court of Home Secretary, Government of N.-W.F.P., Peshawar who vide order dated 25-11-1991 set aside the same and remanded the case to respondent No,9 to pass a speaking order. After the remand vide detailed judgment dated 26-9- 1992 the appeal was dismissed and the order of APA dated 29-10-1989 was maintained. The petitioner's revision petition against the order dated 26-9-1992 of the Additional Commissioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Secretary, Government of N.-W.F.P. Home and Tribal Affairs Department. Having exhausted all the remedies before the forums of competent jurisdiction plaintiff-petitioner approached the learned Peshawar High Court in W.P. No, 670 of 1993 for setting aside the judgment, decrees and orders of the forums and for remand of the case and a decision on merits. The learned High Court dismissed the writ petition on an additional ground of absence of 'Talab' and in consequence lack of jurisdiction of the Courts in granting pre-emption decree after 31st of July, 1986.
3. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents (Cavator) and persued the impugned orders.
4. ' It is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he did not file copy of the registered sale-deed with his plaint when the order of deposit of pre-emption amount of Rs,20,000 was passed by the trial Court. Subsequently when the vendee filed his written statement and brought into the notice of the Court that Rs,5,00,000 was ostensible sale consideration of the said land paid to the vendor the learned trial Judge directed the petitioner to deposit Rs,1,30,000 more before the date given therein. Petitioner did deposit Rs,20,000 but failed to furnish security of Rs,1,10,000 rather he furnished the security for a sum of Rs,1,000 i,e. Deficient by Rs,10,000. Such being the case the forums of competent jurisdiction in the matter rightly ordered dismissal of the suit for non- compliance of the order of deposit. The learned High Court, therefore, while affirming the order of dismissal of the suit has given added reasons while dismissing the writ petition. There is no force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the 'petitioner that the learned High Court has ignored the real controversy between the parties and has dismissed the writ petition for absence of requisite 'Tatabs'. This petition for leave is, therefore, dismissed.