' TANVIRAHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 18-11-2002 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, allowed the respondent to deposit the incidental charges of Rs,20,000 up to 18th December, 2002.
2. Facts briefly are that the petitioners purchased land measuring133 Kanals, 10 Marlas through a Mutation No, 1808, dated 22-12-1993 for a consideration of Rs,3,35,000. The respondent filed a suit forpossession through the pre-emption which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Mankera, through his judgment, dated 7-11-1995. The respondent filed an appeal which was partly accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar vide his judgment, dated 26-5-1996 to the extent of land measuring 91 Kanals, 16 Marlas. The petitioners filed revision petition wherein the determination of the First Appellate Court allowing the possession through the pre-emption of the land measuring 91 Kanals. 16 Marlas was maintained by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, through his judgment, dated 3-6-2002.. He however, further directed the respondent to deposit the incidental charges of Rs,20,000 within one month, failing which the suit filed by him would be deemed to have been dismissed. The present respondent, however, filed C.M.A No, 952/L of 2002 on 9-7-2002 seeking extension of time which was allowed through the impugned judgment. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire documents appended with this petition with their assistance. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the incidental charges were allowed for the first time by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. They were to be deposited by 3-7-2002. However, the present respondent could not get proper information qua that as such, C.M.A. No, 952/L of 2002 was moved for the extension of time. The learned Single Judge while allowing the application has rightly stated as under:-- "To my mind if he could have deposited a sum of Rs,2,31,110 within the stipulated period then why could not he deposit the remaining amount, which is a minor portion of the major amountwithin the stipulated period. If flows therefrom that thepetitioner may not be within the knowledge of the passing of the order regarding the deposit of Rs,20,000 and/or prevented by sufficient cause.
(6) Another aspect of the case is that the judgment was passed by this Court on 3-6-2002, the time fixed for depositing the requisite amounts expired on 3-7-2002, the applicant did file-an application before the learned Trial Court, which as noted above, was not entertained and the present applications were filed on 9-7-2002. The above narrative would sufficiently show that there is not delay on the part of the applicant in filing the application in hand and he had vigilantly been pursuing the cause before the available forums. If these applications are not allowed, the applicant, who had already deposited a considerable amount of Rs,2,31,110 and has complied with the directions of this Court, will suffer an immense loss."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any force, is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined.