1992 PLP 2317 (MLD)

S.M. Almas Ali for Respondents. Date of hearing‑ 18th March, 1990. In this second appeal, the appellant has questioned the correctness of the sale price (i.e. Rs.30,000) made payable by the first appellate Court. In the course of arguments, he has decided to withdraw this appeal. So. the appeal is dismissed as having been withdrawn. 2. On 28‑3‑1.979, after admitting the second appeal to regular hearing, this Court had directed in C.M. No.1839‑C of 1979 that:‑ "that appellant should, therefore, deposit at least Rs.14,000 within the time stipulated in the decree. This sum of Rs.14,000 will include the preliminary deposit of 1/5th of the sale price which might have been already .deposited. The deposit of the remaining amount of Rs.16,000 is stayed in the meanwhile." This order was confirmed on 22‑5‑1979. The appellant has already deposited Rs.14,000 within the time stipulated in‑ the decree of the first appellate Court. He shall now deposit Rs.16,000 within one month from today. 3. At this stage, while objecting to the grant of time to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.16,000 the learned counsel for the respondent maintained that since the appellant has withdrawn this second appeal, therefore, no more time can bet granted by this Court for the deposit of the remaining amount of Rs.16,000. I do not agree with him. I feel that had this Court not stayed the deposit of Rs.16,(00 vide its order, dated 28‑3‑1979, the appellant might have deposited the entire amount within the time stipulated in the decree of the first appellate Court. So in the interest of justice, this Court is obliged to grant him time to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.1.6,000. The learned counsel also pointed out that since the plaintiff/appellant had failed to deposit the sale price (Rs.14,000) determined by the trial Court within the time given by it therefore, the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed. I find that this objection was not raised before the first appellate Court. On appeal, the first appellate Court had enhanced the sale price from Rs.14,000 to Rs.30,000 and had fixed time for the deposit of the entire amount of Rs.30,00b vide its decree .dated 21‑6‑1978. So it is too late in the day to say that the suit for the plaintiff/appellant stands dismissed on account of his failure to deposit the sale price within the time granted by the trial Court. The objections raised I by the learned counsel for the respondent are overruled. The appellant will deposit the remaining amount of Rs.16,000 within a month from today. If he fails to deposit this amount within the time given in this order, he will not be entitled to enjoy the benefit granted to him in the decree of the first appellate Court. The parties will bear their own costs. AA./D‑11/L Order accordingly.