1992 PLP 797 (MLD)

This civil revision by the plaintiff arises out of a pre‑emption suit. It was decreed by the trial Court on 18‑12‑1980, conditional upon payment of Rs.25,000 as sale price of the land to vendee‑respondent No.3, within thirty days of the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Vendee did not appeal. Plaintiff pre‑emptor appealed to learned District Judge for a reduction in the price payable for the land. His appeal was partially accepted on 25‑3‑1982, by reducing decretal amount to Rs.15,000 to be paid by or before 25‑4‑

198. Still not satisfied, pre‑emptor came up in revision in this Court, for a further reduction in the sale price. Civil revision was admitted on 15‑12‑1985 by my learned brother Muhammad Aslam Mian, J. Earlier to it, on 25‑4‑1982, the Court had suspended the operation of the impugned judgment which order was later confirmed on 23‑4‑1986. Civil revision came up for hearing before recess. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 was present in Court but neither the petitioner nor his counsel was in attendance. I was informed by Abdul Qadir, Peon, that clerk to Malik Abdul Sattar Chughtai, Advocate, attended the Court and was informed about the case. Eversince then, repeated calls have been made in the name of the petitioner as also his learned counsel Malik Abdul Sattar Chughtai, Advocate, but without any response from them. Even intimations sent to the Bar room have evoked no satisfactory response. It is really painful to observe that learned counsel for the petitioner had not the courtesy of even informing the Court about his pre‑occupation and the cause for his not entering to appear and assist the Court. . Only point raised for decision in civil revision is about the price payable for the land in dispute, rest has already been concluded and is no longer in dispute. Sale was made on 25‑9‑1919. About twelve years have already gone by, yet a minor dispute about the price remains to be settled. Meanwhile, much water has run under the bridges and the value of the land gone up manifold with. .a corresponding decrease in money value of the currency. With the assistance of the learned counsel for respondent No.3, I have read the record. Unfortunately, because of absence of the petitioner and his learned counsel, I was denied hearing from them. But what can be done, when the petitioner and his learned counsel despite efforts do not appear to assist the Court by putting it in a position not to proceed further. Matter in revision is pending eversince 1982. My own examination of the record sufficiently convinced me that the issue about payment of sale price has been properly resolved and in the aftermath of inflationary trends and rise in value of real estate, it shall neither be legal nor just nor equitable to make a further cut in the price found payable by the lower appellate Court. After all pre -emption is substitution and pre‑emptor is bound to pay the price of the land and cannot be given free. The price already fixed for it appeared to be its true I value. In the conspectus of circumstances, there is no room for further interference, civil revision is, accordingly, dismissed on two‑fold ground i.e. non‑appearance on behalf of the petitioner and lack of merits in it. There shall be no order as to costs in this Court. Records be returned. At the end, I may like to repeat that non‑appearance at the hearing, which tantamounts to non‑co‑operation greatly handicaps the smooth working of the Court in the task of administration of justice and clearance of backlog of the cases. At about 1‑00 p.m. after I had dictated the judgment, Mr. Chughtai appeared and submitted that he had instructions to withdraw the civil revision. H.B.T./M‑210/L Revision dismissed.