2000SCMR365 (PLP)

SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.

This petition is directed against the order dated 14-12-1998 passed by the Peshawar High Court, in Civil Revision No. 104 of 199.6.

2. The facts in brief are that Janahzeb Khan petitioner herein had filed a pre-emption suit in respect of the suit property against Muhammad Iqbal, respondent herein. On 21-12-1995 the learned trial Court directed Jahanzeb Khan to deposit 1/3 of the pre-emption money before 13-2-1996. He failed to comply with the order and instead moved an application for extension of time. The learned trial Court extended the time.

3. Feeling aggrieved, Muhammad Iqbal filed an appeal in the District Court. The learned Additional District Judge, Haripur by judgment dated 28-7-1997 dismissed the appeal. and upheld the order of the learned trial Court, Muhammad Iqbal then filed a writ petition in the High Court which was accepted on 14-12-1998 and the orders of the Courts below were set aside and the pre-emption suit filed by Jahanzeb Khan was dismissed.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for Jahanzeb Khan, petitioner, that the power to fix the time for deposit under section 24(1) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987, as amended by the N.-W.F.P. Act X of 1992, includes the power to extend the time for such deposit also, and as such the learned trial Court was legally competent to extend the time for the deposit of 1/3 of the sale price.

5. We have considered the ground which weighed with the learned trial Court in extending the time and are of the opinion that it was vague and was not accompanied by any medical certificate or an affidavit of Jahanzeb Khan. Even if, these shortcomings have not been there still the High Court could not have legally extended the time limit because the law is very clear and subsection (2) of section 24 of Pre-emption Act, 1987, as amended in 1992 makes it obligatory for the Court to dismiss the suit on the failure of the plaintiff to deposit 1/3 of the sale price within the period fixed by the Court.

6. Before amendment of section 24 by Act X of 1992, the Court had the power to extend the period not beyond 30 days of filing of the suit but under the amended section 24, there is no statutory limit within which the deposit has to be made and matter has been left to the discretion of the Court to fix time within which the deposit has to be made and its failure must result in the dismissal of the suit.

7. It is a settled rule of interpretation that law is to be interpreted and applied rationally, justly, fairly and not arbitrarily, thus, no benefit can be claimed by the petitioner by invoking the former provisions of section 24 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the order of the learned High Court in dismissing the suit for the failure of the petitioner to deposit 1/3rd of the sale price within the period fixed by the trial Court is unexceptionable and does not call for any interference. In consequence, the petition is dismissed. M.B.A./J-33/S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed