1986 PLP 209 (CLC)

Nemo for Respondent No.1. Mian Shamsul Haq Ansari for Respondents Nos. 2 to

8. Dates of hearing: 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th June, 1984. This writ petition is directed against the revisional order of a learned Additional District Judge at Vehari, dated 27‑2‑1984 whereby he has, after accepting the revision remanded the case to the trial Court to decide the question of reduction in the cash amount required to be deposited in terms of subsection (1) of section 22 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act. On a previous date the trial Court had ordered the deposit of Zar‑e‑Panjam but later on an application given by the pre‑emptors reduced it to 1/10th of the ostensible sale price.

2. The reason which prevailed with the learned Additional District Judge was that the trial Court should have passed the order after hearing the vendees‑defendants to the suit.

3. At the hearing before me, .the learned counsel has relied on Ch. Zulfiqar Ali v. Mian Akhtar Islam P L D 1967 S C 418 and Ghulam Haider and others v. Muhammad Hanif and others P L D 1983 Lah. 274 to canvass that there was jurisdiction in the trial Court to vary the order at any time before the issues had been framed.

4. On a bare reading of the order of the learned Additional District Judge, I do not think that he has disputed the power of the trial Court to vary the amount of cash deposit. What he has precisely said' is that the opposite side ought to have been heard. By this observation, no damage appears to have been done to the petitioners because as) rightly pointed out by Mr. Shamsul Haq Ansari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the pettioners' plaint is not being rejected for non‑compliance with the earlier order of the trial Court, dated 9‑6‑1982. He further submits that his clients are not going to take the stance that the plaint is liable to be rejected for non‑compliance with the order, dated 9‑6‑1982 but he insists on his being heard before a variance in the order is made and in that behalf it is open for him to justify the previous order of 9‑6‑1982 and to say that the amount ought not to be reduced in the circumstances of the case.

5. Apart from the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents there need not be any apprehension in the mind of the petitioners because before the expiry of the period fixed by the trial Court, vide order, dated 9‑6‑1982 for deposit of Zar‑e‑Panjam by 11‑7‑1982, this order was on 3‑7‑1982 varied and the amount reduced to 1/10th of the ostensible sale price. There arose in the circumstances no question of non‑compliance as the revised amount as ordered by the Court on 3‑7‑1982 was paid up within the time originally fixed by the Court as is evident from the proceedings, dated 11‑7‑1982. This fact is not being disputed.

6. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that for non‑compliance with the order, dated 9‑6‑1982 the petitioners would not be visited with a penalty of rejection of the plaint and the view expressed by me earlier, the learned counsel for the petitioners would not like to press this petition. It is disposed of accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. M.B.A. Order accordingly.