' Instant revision petition is directed against the order, dated 31-7-1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Islamabad whereby he dismissed the appeal filed against the order, 'dated 12-9- 1998 passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Islamabad.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that plaintiffs/respondents are owners of property described fully in the plaint. They (plaintiffs/respondents) filed a suit for possession against the defendant/petitioner.
Vide order, dated 13-5-1998 the defendant/petitioner was directed to deposit rent at the rate of Rs,3,800 w,e,f, August, 1997 up to date. The defendant/petitioner applied for copy of order, dated 13- 5-1998 and collected the same on 8-7-1998 and observed that the impugned order contained a direction for the deposit of rent at the rate of Rs,38,000 instead of Rs,3,800. He then moved an application for the correction of said order on 23-7-1998 which was accepted on 4-9-1998. On the same day an application was also moved by the respondents for initiating proceedings against the petitioner under Order 17, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code. This application was resisted by the petitioner, but the same was accepted vide order, dated 12-9-1998 and the defendant/petitioner was directed to vacate the premises. The defendant/petitioner felt aggrieved of the order, dated 12-9-1998 and filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge vide order, dated 31-7-1999. Hence the instant civil revision.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. Main contention of the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner is that it was on account of an act of the Court that he could not deposit the rent even at the rate of Rs,3,800. He further argued that after the acceptance of their application, dated 23-7-1998 vide order, dated 4-9-1998 the trial Court was bound to grant further time for the compliance of order, dated 13-5-1998 and as such trial Court could not proceed against them under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. A perusal of order-sheet, dated 13-5-1998 clearly reveals that the defendant/petitioner was directed to deposit arrears of rent w,e,f, August 1997 up to date at the rate of Rs,3,800 within 15 days from the said order.
Admittedly the defendant/petitioner did not comply the said order within the stipulated period and waited till he obtained attested copy of said order on 8-7-1998 and came to know that it contained a direction for the deposit of rent at the rate of Rs,38,000 instead of Rs,3,800. Even if it is assumed that he came to know about the said direction on 8-7-1998 he waited for another 15 days for moving an application for the correction of said order as the same was moved on 23-7-1998. As order-sheet, dated 13-5-1998 clearly shows that defendant/petitioner was directed to deposit rent at the rate of Rs,3,8000, so it was incumbent upon the defendant/petitioner to deposit the said rent.
The mere fact that he did not deposit the rent within 15 days from 13-5-1998, clearly proves that he had no intention to comply order, dated 13-5-1998. Even after coming to know about the typographic mistake in the rate of rent on 8-7-998 he did not approach the Court immediately but waited for another 15 days and moved the application on 23-7-1998. The contents of application, dated 23-7-1998 reveal that he never requested the trial Court for extending the time originally fixed vide order, dated 13-5-1998. As no request for extension of time for deposit of rent was made by the defendant/petitioner so the trial Court did not pass any order to that effect.
6.It is evident from the facts narrated above that petitioner intentionally violated the order, dated 13-5-1998 and as such Trial Court proceeded against him under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C., in accordance with law vide order, dated 12-9-1998 which was upheld by the Appellate Court. Both the trial Court as well as the Court of first appeal have rightly exercised their jurisdiction in passing the order, dated 12-9-1998 as well as 31-7-1999. The revision petition is bereft of any force as such the same is dismissed in limine.