2007 PLP 399 (SCMR)

SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.

These appeals after leave of Court have been filed by the vendee/defendants against a common judgment, dated 25-1-2002 of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court dismissing their writ petitions against the orders of Member, Board of Revenue Punjab who, while accepting the revision petition of the pr-emptor, allowed him to deposit pre-emption money pursuant to the final decree granted to him.

2. The admitted facts are that the pre-emptors obtained pre-emption decrees against the appellant/vendees on 20-8-1985, subject to deposit of Rs.5,000 (after adjustment of 1/5 already deposited) as pre-emption money on or before 21-10-1985. The vendees filed appeals before the Additional Commissioner who, on 5-10-1985 i.e. before the expiry of period for deposit, suspended the judgment of the trial Court so far it related to the deposit of pre-emption money. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed on 11-8-1986.

3. The decree-holders made various applications for deposit of pre-emption money and for extension of time. The Additional Commissioner made a few orders thereon and allowed the deposit of money at decree-holders' own risk. The same was deposited on 1-2-1990 but lastly he passed an order on 27-3-1990 directing the decree-holders to deposit pre-emption money on or before 31-1-1990. Noteworthy is the uniqueness and novelty of the order that the deposit is directed to be made on a date that had already lapsed almost two months prior to the date of passing of the order. Such confused, rather, confusing order of the Additional Commissioner was set aside by the Member, Board of Revenue against which the writ petitions of the vendees failed and hence these appeals.

4. Without going into the unnecessary details, suffice it to say that while passing a pre-emption decree, the Court is bound under Order XX, rule 14, C.P.C., to specify a day on or before which the purchase money shall be so paid and that, if such money and the costs, if any, are not so paid, the suit shall stand dismissed with costs.

5. Such order was passed by the trial Court in the instant case but before the expiry of the period fixed, the same was suspended by the appellate Authority on 5-10-1985. Once the Appellate Court/Authority suspends the order of deposit of pre-emption money passed by the Trial Court, it is bound to pass similarly order, if ultimately the appeal is dismissed. The reason is obvious, because the order of the Trial Court remains suspended and almost withdrawn. By the time the appeal stood dismissed, the period fixed by the trial Court has expired long ago. The view expressed is in perfect accord with the view held by a larger Bench of this Court in Bhai Khan's case 1980 SCMR 42.

6. In the instant case the whole fuss seems to have been created by the Additional Commissioner who, under the law, was bound to record a fresh order for deposit of pre-emption money, within the contemplation of Order XX, rule 14, C.P.C., simultaneous with the dismissal of appeals. Even subsequently, the Additional Commissioner, despite applications of the pre-emptor, not only did not realize the implications involved but passed a ridiculous order on 27-3-1990 to deposit the amount on or before 31-1-1990. The pre-emptor, therefore could not be condemned on account of an act of the court. The rightly set aside by the Board of Revenue, not interfered with by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. There being no merit in the appeals, all the four are hereby dismissed. S.A.K./M-178/SC Appeals dismissed.