I propose to decide Civil Revision Petitions Nos.201, 202, 203, 255, 256 and 257 of 1991 by this single judgment recorded in Petition No.201 the law point involved in all these cases being the same.
2. It so happened that petitioner Nardullah Khan lodged a pre-emption suit in respect of certain agricultural land on 21-7-1990 before the Civil Court at Mardan. On 26-7-1990 the Court directed him to deposit a sum of Rs.14,267 in cash and furnish Bank Guarantee for the balance pre-emption amount of Rs.28,533 within 30 days of deposit the entire sum of Rs.42,800 in that period. The next date of hearing fixed in the case was 16-9-1990. Anyhow, the pre--emption amount could not be deposited by the plaintiff in compliance of the Court order, dated 26-7-1990 within the stipulated period. The defendants as such moved the Court for the dismissal of the suit on that ground but their application was rejected on 6-11-1990. The plaintiff had sought permission for the deposit of the entire pre-emption amount and moved an application for that purpose on 9-9-1990 which the Court allowed and on the next day, i.e. 10-9-1990 he made deposit in Court of the total sum of Rs.42,800. This may be stated here that the Court after summer vacation had opened on 1-9-1990.
The defendants-vendees, however, assailed the aforesaid order of the Trial Court in appeal before the District Judge who after hearing the appeal came to the conclusion, that as the plaintiff had failed to comply with the Trial Court order passed under section 24 of N.-W.F.P. Act No.X of 1987 his suit was, therefore, liable to dismissal under subsection (2) of section 24 of the Act aforesaid. He thus on the acceptance of the appeal dismissed the suit on 11-6-1991. The pre--emptor being not satisfied has now impugned the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court by way of this revision petition lodged under section 115, C. P. C.
3. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides Admittedly, the suit had been lodged by the petitioner before the amendment of section 24 of the N.-W.F.P. Act No.X of 1987 by Act No.X of 1992, i.e., the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption (Amendment) Act, 1992 which was enforced on 16-12-1992 and as subsection (2) of section 1 of the Amendment Act states it, shall be deemed to have taken effect on the 31st day of December, 1991. Anyhow, as the record indicates the petitioner's suit had been filed much before the enforcement and taking effect of the Amending Act. This suit was instituted on 21-7-1990 when the amendment aforesaid was not in creation. We would, therefore, adjudge this case on the basis of the text of the original section 24 of Act No.X of 1987 which provides as under:--
24. Plaintiff to deposit sale price of the property.--(i) In every suit for pre-emption the Court shall require the plaintiff to deposit in such Court one-third of the sale price of the property in cash and for the remaining two-third furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Court within such period as the Court may fix: Provided that such period shall not extend beyond thirty days of the filing of the suit: Provided further that if no sale price is mentioned in the sale-deed or in the mutation, the Court shall require the deposit of one-third of the probable value of the property and a bank guarantee for the remaining two-third of such probable value: Provided also that the plaintiff may, in lieu of bank guarantee; deposit the required amount in cash.
(2) Where the plaintiff fails to deposit one-third of the sale price or the probable value of the property and the required bank guarantee under subsection (1) within the period fixed by the Court, his suit shall be dismissed.
(3) Where the plaintiff withdraws the sum deposited by him or the bank guarantee furnished by him under subsection (1), his suit shall be dismissed.
(4) Every sum deposited under subsection (1) shall be available for the discharge of costs.
(5) The probable value fixed under subsection (1) shall not affect the final determination of the price payable by the pre-emptor.
4. It, therefore, becomes very clear by subsections (1) and (2) of section 24 (ibid), that in case the pre-emptor fails to make compliance of the order of the Court for the deposit of the pre-emption money and furnishing of the bank guarantee in the manner as provided in these subsections within the stipulated period fixed by the Court which could not be extended beyond 30 days of the filing of the suit, the suit had to be dismissed. In all these cases the pre-emptor in compliance of the trial Judge order, dated 26-7-1990 did not deposit the cash amount of Rs.14,267 and furnish bank guarantee for the balance amount of Rs.28,533 or deposit the entire pre-emption amount in the sum of Rs.42,800 within 30 days from the filing of the suit. The last date on which he could make such a deposit was 21-8-1990 but we are told that the Court was closed for summer vacation on that day and till 31-8-1990. The pre-emptor as such could at the most make deposit of the pre- emption money on 1-9-1990 i.e., on the first day of opening of the Court. He instead moved an application before the learned Civil Judge on 9-9-1990 and sought permission for deposit of the entire amount of pre-emption money in the sum of Rs.42,800 and on the Court order, deposited the same on the next day, i.e. 10-9-1990. The Court could not obviously extend the statutory period of limitation as provided by section 24 of the Act ibid.
5. The argument that in case of refusal or permission by the Court the pre-- emptor could file another suit as he had still one year period of limitation to his credit would be of no avail as for non-deposit of the pre-emption money the suit entailed total dismissal which had the effect of barring a fresh suit. In support of this view reliance is placed on the Supreme Court case of Haji Janat Gul--Appellant v. Haji Faqir Muhammad Khan and 4 others Respondents reported in PLD 1993 SC 204.
6. The learned Appellate Court has, therefore; rightly concluded that the, trial Judge had no jurisdiction to extend time in the matter statutorily fixed and ` failure to deposit the amount of one- third in cash and two-third by way of bank 1 guarantee or the whole amount in cash entailed dismissal of the suit under section 24 of the Act ibid. The impugned judgment and decree is maintained and these revision petitions dismissed for want of substance. No order as to l costs.