P (PLP)

K. A. Jeelani, for Respondent. JUDGMENT.‑The facts giving rise to this revision petition are briefly as follows :‑ The petitioner brought a pre‑emption suit in respect of the sale of certain land in the Court of Sub‑Judge, Muzaffarabad in the Dogra regime. The petitioner deposited 1/5th of the sale price at the time of, the institution of the suit. A decree was passed in favour of the petitioner for possession of the land on his paying Rs. 303 after deducting Rs. 60' already deposited by him by a certain date. The petitioner alleging that he complied with the terms of the decree, moved the Court of Sub Judge Muzaffarabad to order the delivery of the possession of the land to him. Two questions arose for decision. One was whether the Azad Kashmir Government Courts were bound to execute the decree passed by the Court functioning in the Dogra regime and the second was whether the petitioner had complied with the terms of the decree by depositing money in the Court by a particular date. The Sub‑Judge, Muzaffarabad found that the petitioner had not complied with the terms of the decree. Accordingly the application of the petitioner for delivery of the possession of the land to him was dismissed. Against that decision the petitioner preferred an appeal to the District Judge, Muzaftarabad, who up‑held the decision of the lower Court. The petitioner now challenges the decision of the, District judge in revision. Both the Sub‑Judge and the District Judge, Muzafaraoad found that the petitioner had not complied with the terms of the decree by paying the amount ordered within the specified period. The decision of this question rested on the oath proposed by the petitioner and taken by the respondent. The evidence produced by the petitioner with regard to the payment of the money by him in Court was also not satisfactory. It was for these reasons that both the Sub‑Judge and the District judge found that the petitioner had not paid the money as ordered by the Court, The payment of money in Court by the petitioner within the specified period being a question of fact and the finding of two Courts being against the petitioner this Court is not competent to go into it. Even if this question is considered then the evidence on the file does not warrant the finding in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner having not complied with the terms of the decree passed by the Sub‑Judge in his favour cannot possibly ask for its execution. The petitioner has not shown any cogent reasons for which further time can be given to him for complying with the terms of the decree which he wants to execute. The result is that this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel‑fee Rs.

15. K.M.A Revision dismissed.