' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---The writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed for non-prosecution on 13-3-2001 which on their application was restored through order dated 26-4-2001 subject to payment of Rs,3,000 as costs. In spite of two or three dates having been_fixed in the writ petition, the cost was not paid, therefore, the said condition having not been fulfilled, the writ petition shall be deemed to have remained as dismissed for non-prosecution, therefore, the impugned order was accordingly passed.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and find that admittedly the land in dispute was allotted to the private respondents whose allotment was cancelled and thereafter the same was allotted to Noor Muhammad and Mst. Amir Begum as stated by the learned counsel who sold the same to Mst. Musharaf Sultana from whom the petitioners had purchased the land.
Subsequently, however, the allotment of the private respondents was restored and the petitioners filed the writ petition in hand without impleadment of either Noor Muhammad or Mst. Amir Begum on one hand or Mst. Musharaf Sultana on the other hand, therefore, we are of the considered view that writ petition was not being prosecuted in a fair and bona fide manner and the respondents were being dragged in the litigation unnecessarily whose allotment had been restored with the restoration of which the allotment made to Noor Muhammad and Mst. Amir Begum was of no legal effect, therefore, any sale made by them to Mst. Musharaf Sultana and by Mst. Musharaf Sultana onward to the petitioners was also of no legal effect.
3. The petitioners, however, should pursue remedy against Mst. Musharaf Sultana for the recovery of amount of consideration if they so like.
4. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merits in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.