In a pre-emption suit filed by the respondents for possession of land purchased by the petitioners, a decree was passed on 10-11-1985. Under the terms of decree, a sum of Rs,25,000 was to be deposited by 12-12-1985 while the Zar-e-Panjam of Rs,5.000 was to be withdrawn by the respondents. It .is an admitted fact that a sum of Rs,25,000 was deposited within the said time.
Somehow the other. on a strict interpretation of the terms of the decree despite the fact that the total amount of Rs,25.000 stood, deposited within the time allowed, the same was considered/treated to be a default leading to filing of an application under 'section 152, C.P.C. -by respondents. This application was dismissed on 9-5-1986 by the learned trial Court. A civil revision tiled by the respondents was allowed and the case was remanded back by a learned Additional District Judge, Kasur on 8-101986 after holding the application to be "perfectly maintainable". This judgment of the learned Additional District Judge was not challenged anywhere rather hi compliance with the same, the petitioners joined the proceedings before the learned trial Court.
After the remand, evidence was recorded and the learned trial Court proceeded to dismiss the application vide order dated 22-6-1995. Feeling aggrieved the respondents filed a civil 'skin which was heard by a learned Additional District Judge at Chunnian District Kasur who allowed the same vide Judgment dated 12-7-2000.
2. Learned counsel contends that the application was not competent under section 152, C.P.C. which defines the parameters in which the powers vesting in a Court under the said provision of Law. are to he exercised.
3. At a glance. the agreement appears to be attractive but then at closer scrutiny looses force. I have already stated above that the learned Additional District Judge in his earlier judgment had already declared the application to be competent. Besides I find that the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge dated 12-7-2000. is primarily just. It is an admitted fact that the entire amount of Rs,25,000 stood deposited before 12-12-1985 which was the date fixed for the purpose. It was never the case of the petitioners that they applied for withdrawal of the amount and that any portion of the same was with held by the concerned Department on the basis of the terms of the decree. Constitutional jurisdiction is in the first instance discretionary in nature. I find that Justice has been done in this case by the learned Additional District Judge. For all purposes, the respondents had complied with the terms of the decree and it would be rather hyper-technical to decline relief to the respondents on the basis of arguments sought to be advanced on behalf of the petitioners. The Writ Petition is dismissed in limine.