2008 PLP 479 (CLC)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

For the purposes of this F.A.O. reference to detailed pleaded facts would not be necessary suffice to say that on 22-12-2005 the respondent filed a suit against the appellant. The suit was filed to exercise right of pre-emption. It was stated that the suit-land has been purchased by the appellant for a consideration of Rs.7,50,000 vide Mutation No.2945 attested on 21-9-2005. The case came up before the learned trial Court on 23-12-2005. Office was called upon to report and it was reported by the Reader that 1/3rd comes to Rs.2,50,

000. The learned trial Court passed the following order:- There is no dispute that sum of Rs.2,50,000 was deposited by- the respondent as directed. On 2-9-2006 an application was filed by the appellant stating that he has in fact purchased land for Rs.37,50,000 and the appellant has falsely mentioned the amount as Rs.7,50,000 and has deposited Rs.2,50,000 1/3rd whereas 1/3rd comes to Rs.12,50,000 and according to him the said amount is so mentioned in the mutation. The reply was filed stating that in the report in Roznamcha regarding Mutation No.2945 the price was mentioned as Rs.7,50,000 and so is the case in the entry reports Several other factors were also mentioned that in fact Rs.7,50,000 was paid. The learned trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit on 17-11-2006. A first appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed by a learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, on 31-7-2007, who has directed the appellant to deposit the remaining amount after holding that a proper order for deposit had not been passed and further holding that in fact the price mentioned in the mutation is Rs.37,50,000 and has remanded back the case for decision on merits.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the mutation as well as in Roznamcha the price is mentioned as Rs.37,50,000 and order for deposit should lave been passed accordingly and since the actual 1/3rd has not been deposited, the suit was correctly dismissed by the learned trial Court.

3. I have gone through the certified copies of the records appended with the assistance of the learned counsel. I have already reproduced the necessary details of the proceedings. As to what was price of the land that was paid by the appellant to the vendor is yet to be decided. However, the copy of the mutation (Annexure "J") shows that mutation was entered with reference to report No.15 in Roznamcha Waqiati and mentions the sale price as Rs.7,50,000 both in figures as well as in words. In the attestation order, however, a sum of Rs.37,50,000 is mentioned at two places. The appellant has appended report No.38, dated 21-9-2005 (not report No.15, dated 3-9-2005) and this also narrates that in the Mutation 2945 the sale price was mentioned as Rs.7,50,000 and it was at the time of attestation that the amount was corrected with reference to the admission of the parties to the sale. I do, therefore, find that mala fide cannot be attributed to the respondent while mentioning the price as Rs.7,50,000 in the plaint.

4. Besides primarily it is duty of the Court to pass a correct order under section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. I have already reproduced the order passed on 23-12-2005 above. It simply says that 1/3rd be deposited within 30 days. The learned Additional District Judge has very rightly pointed out that the learned trial Court ought to have specified the amount which was to be deposited particularly when office had reported that 1/3rd comes to Rs.12,50,000.

5. Having thus, examined the record I do not find any error of law or fact in the impugned order. The F.A.O. is accordingly dismissed in limine. M.H./T-36/L Appeal dismissed.