1976 PLP 502 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing. 12th March 1974. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C J. ‑‑‑The petitioner herein filed a suit for pre-emption of a transaction of sale entered into on the, 5th of December, 1963. whereby the respondents purchased the property in dispute ostensibly for Rs.1,20,982.50. The pre‑emptor alleged in his plaint that the real Price was only Rs. 80,

000. During the trial, tire plaintiff petitioner agreed to be bound by the oath of the respondent No. I on the Holy Qur'an as to the value of the property. The said respondent took the oath that the price paid for the property was Rs. 1,20,982.50. The other issues were decided in favour of the petitioner and pre‑emotion was decreed on the 9th of May, 1966, subject to the payment of Rs. 1,20,982,50 less the sum already deposited, on or before the 9th of June, 1966. On the 7th of June, 1966, the petitioner Applied for, permission to deposit Rs. 95,786 which he was allowed to do, but, unfortunately, his calculation turned out to be wrong and the deposit short by Rs. 1,

000. In the circumstances, the suit for pre‑emption stood dismissed in terms of the decree itself on the 9th of June, 1966. The petitioner, however, filed an appeal in the High Court with a view to getting an extension of time for making the deposit. The defendant also filed an appeal challenging the decree of the trial Court. The High Court Held that the petitioner was himself responsible for the negligence committed by him in failing to deposit the amount in accordance with the direction given in the decree. 'The judgment and decree of the trial Court were quite clear and, therefore, the petitioner could not be heard to say that he failed to male the requisite deposit within the time granted on account of any misapprehension car bona fide miscalculation. The appeal of the petitioner as well as of the respondent were accordingly dismissed without any order as to assts. The petitioner now' seek special leave to appeal, and it is contended on his behalf that it was open to the high Court to extend the time. This contention is untenable in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Shah Wali v. Ghulam Din (PLD 1966SC983). Learned counsel appearing in support of the petition contends that this decision needs reconsideration. We are unable to agree with him, for, this is a well‑considered judgment: by a Full Court and. has been subsequently re‑affirmed in several cases. In any event, it is clear that no relief could be granted because, it the decree of the trial Court started that in the event of the default in the payment the suit "shall stand dismissed, then, on the happening of the default, the decree became operative of its own force and the time fixed there under could not be extended thereafter. In any view of the matter, therefore, the petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.