Mukhtar Ahmad respondent/vendee purchased the disputed land comprising an area of 2 Kanals 16 Marlas of land situated in village Sahib AX Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari from one Muhammad Ayyub Khan through sale --deed registered on 29-1-1984. Zahoor Ahmad Khan petitioner, a real brother of Muhammad Ayyub Khan, instituted a suit to pre-empt the said sale with the assertion that he being a collateral of the vendor had the superior pre-emptive right which status was not enjoyed by the defendant/vendee. According to him the sale price of Rs.25,000 was got entered in the sale-deed to scare away the pre-emptors and that an amount of Rs.13,250 was fixed and paid thereof which was also the market value of the suit land. Ex parte proceedings were initiated against Mukhtar Ahmad respondent. The ex parte evidence was recorded. Vide ex parte judgment and decree dated 11-7-1985 the suit for possession by pre-emption was decreed for an amount of Rs.25,000 to be deposited till 31-7-1985 after deduction of the 1/5th of the pre-emption money in the sum of Rs.5,000 failing which the suit was deemed to have been dismissed. The petitioner- plaintiff preferred the appeal before the District Judge wherein he assailed the quantum of the pre- emption money. He has already deposited Rs.5,000 as the 1/5th of the pre-emption money and was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.8,250 so as to make the deposit of the amount to the tune of Rs.13,250. Vide order, dated 30-7-1985 the District Judge, Vehari suspended the operation of the decree. However, he dismissed the appeal on 7-1-1986. The petitioner-plaintiff was directed to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.11,750 before the trial Court by 7-2-1986 otherwise his suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed with costs. Feeling aggrieved Zahoor Ahmad plaintiff filed this revision petition on 5-4-1986 before this Court wherein he impugned the quantum of the pre- emption money.
2. Both the parties are being represented by their learned counsel. In view of the rise in the price of the landed property learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this revision petition by expressing that the petitioner is willing to acquire the land in consideration for Rs.25,000. He has expressed that some date may be fixed to enable the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.11,750. Learned counsel for the respondent-vendee has objected to the same by agitating that the District Judge, Vehari had directed the pre---emptor/petitioner to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.11,750 till 7-2-1986 otherwise his suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed who filed the revision petition on 5-4-1986 when in the light of the aforesaid order of the District Judge the suit had already been dismissed. According to him no order directing the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.11,750 could be passed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record before me. I express my inability to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner who canvassed before me that in view of the deposit of an amount of Rs.13,250 earlier and the admission of this revision petition the petitioner/pre-emptor was entitled to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.11,750 to obtain the possession of the agricultural land through the exercise of right of pre-emption. As rightly expressed by the learned counsel for the respondent-vendee the District Judge, Vehari had clearly directed in the judgment dated 7-1-1986 that the plaintiff shall deposit the remaining amount of Rs.11,750 by 7-2-1986 otherwise his suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The revision petition was not filed till 7-2-1986 which was filed on 5-4-1986 and with the lapse of the date of 7-2-1986 the suit stood dismissed. Thus no order as desired by the petitioner can be passed. Hence I hold that this revision petition is of no help to the petitioner/pre-emptor whose suit stood dismissed on 7-2-1986. This revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. I, therefore, dismiss this revision petition. However, in the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs.