MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.- The suit filed by the petitioner to preempt the sale of the land made in consideration of an amount of Rs.80,000/- in favour of the respondents was decreed by the Trial Court with the direction for deposit of said amount of Rs.80,000/- up to 30.4.1986.
2. The petitioner filed appeal to challenge the correctness of quantum of sale price as according to him, the land had been sold for an amount of Rs.20,000/-. As the dispute in appeal related to an amount of Rs.60,000/- being difference of the amount, for which the land was shown to have been sold and the amount for which the same was claimed to have been' sold, therefore, the first Appellate Court directed the petitioner to affix Court-fee stamp of requisite amount on Rs.60,000/- up to 17.5.1986. The petitioner instead of making good deficiency as directed by the Court made an application on 17.5.1986 seeking extension of time on the ground that he was busy in connection with his "Fasal-Gandam", therefore, could not comply with the said order within time. This application was dismissed on the same date i.e. 17.5.1986. As a consequence of this memo, of appeal was also rejected as deficiency in the Court-fee had not been made good by the petitioner.
He filed revision petition against this. Order before the High Court which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 15.2.2000 against which leave is sought.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and find that the petitioner was not only negligent but his conduct was also contumacious. He was granted decree by the Trial Court and instead of payment of the transfer price as held by the Trial Court, he challenged the correctness of the same by raising plea that the same was made for an amount of Rs.20,000/-. When asked to make-up deficiency in the Court-fee on differential amount of Rs.60,000/-, he failed to do so within the time fixed by the first Appellate Court and instead made an application on the date on which deficiency was to be made good for extension of time that to on untenable ground of his being busy in connection of his "Fasal Gandam" which was rightly held to be not a sufficient ground for extension of time.
4. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court does not suffer from any illegality, therefore, this petition being without any merits is hereby dismissed and leave refused.