' The petitioner/plaintiff had instituted a suit for the possession of land through pre-emption in the first instance, on 28-7-1994, in the Court of Civil Judge-I, D.I. Khan. The trial Court directed the petitioner/plaintiff to deposit the pre-emption amount before 8-9-1994. Since the petitioner/plaintiff failed to deposit the pre-emption amount, therefore, his Suit (No,453/1 of 1994 (Ghulam Shabbir. v. Muhammad Khan etc.) was dismissed by the Civil Judge-I, D.I. Khan on 8-9- 1994. The petitioner/plaintiff instituted another suit, on the same ground, which was contested by the respondents/defendants on various grounds legal as well as factual. This time the Senior Civil Judge, Tank Camp at D.I. Khan vide his order dated 20-7-1995 rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. And as such the petitioner was non-suited.
2. Not satisfied with the said order of the Senior Civil Judge, the petitioner assailed his findings before the District Judge, Tank Camp at D.I. Khan who vide his judgment/decree dated 10-9-1995 dismissed the appeal in limine. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard Mr. Rustam Khan Kundi, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
4. Needless to mention that section 13 of the N.-W.F.P Pre-emption Act, 1987 governs the whole scheme of new pre-emption law which has been brought in conformity with the Injunction of Islam and Sunnah, in obedience to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered in Said Kamal's case. According to which the right of pre-emption is extinguished if the pre-emptor does not make the three Talbs, i,e,, Talb-i-Muwathibat, Talib-i-Ishhad and Talb-i-Khusumat, the latter Talb being the enforcement of the right of preemption through Court.
5. A bare reading thereof makes it amply clear that the plaintiff-preemptor can make Talb-d- Khusumat i,e,, enforcement of right of pre-emption, only once and in the absence of any definite/specific provision allowing a second Talb-i-Khusumat, if the limitation prescribed under section 31 of the Act permits, this right cannot be imported into it. The substitution of the rejection of the plaint in the Repealed Act through dismissal of the suit in the new Act is suggestive of the fact that 'the failure to deposit the amount of 1/3rd in cash and 2/3rd as bank guarantee or the whole amount in cash entails dismissal of the suit and has the effect of barring of fresh suit. Reading the two provisions in conjunction, there is no doubt left that the dismissal of the suit under section 24 of the Act ibid finally determines the rights of the parties albeit, subject of course to the decision of the appeal or revision (Haji Janat Gul Khan v. Haji Faqir Muhammad and 4 others) reported as PLD 1993 SC 204.
6. Resultantly, I am of the view, that. The Courts below have committed no illegality or material irregularity and, therefore, interference by this Court is not warranted. The instant revision petition is devoid of any substance and is accordingly dismissed in limine. No orders as to costs.