JUDGMENT MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J. - This revision petition arises out of three suits for possession through pre-emption in respect of land measuring 34 kanals, S marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Jamkey Cheema, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot. One suit was tiled by the present petitioner on 28.1.1980, the second by Tariq Rashid Mehboobi, respondent No. 1 and the third by Muhammad Azhar, predecessor-in-interest of respondents 2 to 6. All the suits were consolidated and the proceedings were conducted in the suit filed by respondent No. 1. The suits were decreed with consent of the parties on 15.6.1983. The Trial Court gave first decree in favour of Tariq Rashid Mehboobi, respondent No, 1 son of Abdul Rashid, vendor who was ordered to deposit the decretal amount of Rs. 34,200/- till 15.7.1983 failing which his suit was to be deemed to have been dismissed, In case of default on the part of respondent No. 1, the suits filed by the petitioner and Muhammad Azhar, deceased were to be deemed to be decreed in half equal shares and they had to pay the decretal amount of Rs. 17,100/- each till 15.8.1983. It was further ordered that if either of the two pre- emptores namely Noor Muhammad, petitioner and Muhammad Azhar defaulted to deposit the amount, then the pre-emptor who had deposited his share of the decretal amount will deposit the remaining amount and get the entire land.
2. Respondent No. 1 failed to deposit the decretal amount till the target date fixed by the Trial Court, hence his suit stood dismissed in terms of the decree of the Court. On 16.7.1983, one Naseer Ahmad Tariq, Advocate filed an application on behalf of respondent No. 1 for extension of time to deposit the decretal amount till 31.8.1983. The application was rejected on the same day on the grounds that the Court had become functus officio and that the application was filed without any legal authority and that no sufficient reason was disclosed for non-compliance of the order of the Court.
On the next day, i.e. 17.7.1983 another application was file on behalf of respondent No. 1 through the same counsel on which the Court passed the following order:- {{ URDU TEXT MISS }} Accordingly, the decretal amount was deposited by respondent No. 1 on the same day. The petitioner and respondents 2 to 6 also deposited their shares of the decretal amount within the period fixed by the Court.
3. Abdul Rashid Khan, vendor in his capacity as general attorney for respondent No. 1 filed an application for execution of the decree on 24.7.1983. The executing Court rejected the application on the ground that the suit filed by respondent No. 1 stood dismissed for non-compliance with the terms of the judgment and decree dated 15.6.1983. Against the said order, Abdul Rashid Khan filed an appeal on 28.7.1983. The learned Addl. District Judge accepted the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Executing Court and held that the decretal amount had been deposited by respondent No. 1 within time.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the record. It is evident that respondent No. 1 failed to avail of the opportunity to deposit the decretal amount till 15.7.1983, therefore, the suit qua him stood dismissed in terms of the decree of the Court. The application made by Naseer Ahmad Tariq, Advocate on 16.7.1983 for extension of time was rejected by the Trial Court for cogent reasons. It was rightly observed in the order that the Court had become functus officio and that the learned counsel had no legal authority to institute the application. The second application filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 by the same counsel was also without any valid authority in his favour. In the first application filed by Naseer Ahmad Tariq, it was stated that a telegraphic message was sent by Abdul Rashid Khan to his son Tariq Rashid who had gone abroad and had not returned till 16.7.1983. However, with the application for execution of the decree, the power-of-attorney from respondent No. 1 shown to have been signed on 16.7.1983 was attached. It was also registered with the Sub-Registrar on 16.7.1983. When confronted with the question that on the one had it was stated in the application that respondent No. 1 had gone abroad and on the other his power-of-attorney allegedly signed on 16.7.1983 was attached with application for execution of the decree, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 stated that he was not in a position to explain this apparent inconsistency. On the second application, the Trial Court without extending time had allowed deposit of the decretal amount to respondent No. 1 at his on responsibility, therefore, the deposit made by respondent No. 1 did not confer any right or title on him. It is true that on 15.7.1983 the Courts were closed due to Friday holiday but then the decretal amount must have been deposited on 16.7.1983. The needful was not done till the said date and the suit stood dismissed to the extent of respondent No. 1. After elimination of respondent No. 1 from the field, the petitioner and Muhammad Azhar deceased (represented by respondents Nos. 2 to 6) were entitled to get the suit land in half equal shares on depositing the amount of Rs. 17,100/- till 15.8.1983. Admittedly, they had made the deposit of their shares of the decretal amount till the; target date. Hence, the suit land will go to them in ! Half equal shares in terms of the decree of the Court. The Appellate Court 1 had acted with material irregularity in setting aside order dated 25.7.1983 passed by the Executing Court.
5. For the foregoing discussion, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 23.4.1985 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sialkot is set aside and that of the Executing Court dated [ 25.7.1983 restored, leaving the parties to bear their on costs.