1986 PLP 861 (MLD)

Chand Shama Begum alias Shama Parveen sought to pre‑empt the sale of the land in dispute on the basis of her superior right of pre‑emption on payment of Rs. 1,50,

000. When the suit was instituted, the learned Civil Judge I‑Class, Minchinabad ordered that Rs. 50,000, one‑fifth of the pre‑emption money should be deposited before 15‑12‑1981. The plaintiff‑respondent moved a petition for the extention of time on the ground that on account of the poor yield of Kharif crop, she could not manage to collect this money and her husband Dilshad Ali who was sick, could not arrange for this amount. The learned trial Court was lenient enough to extend time for depositing one‑fifth of the pre‑emption money till 16‑2‑1982 on her own responsibility subject to the objection which may be voiced by the vendee. Even on 16‑2‑1982, the plaintiff respondent could not deposit one‑fifth of the pre‑emption money and she moved an application on 15‑2‑1982 for the further extention of time on the ground that she had delivered a child and her husband was sick, therefore, she may be allowed further time to deposit the requisite amount. On 15‑2‑1982, the learned Civil Judge, Minchinabad was on leave and this application was moved before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalnagar who without serving a notice to the vendee, extended time for the deposit of the said amount till 18‑2‑1982 and this amount was deposited on the said date.

2. The vendee when appeared before the learned trial Court, made an application that the orders, dated 13‑12‑1981 and 15‑2‑1982 may be set aside as sufficient cause was not shown for the extension of time. The learned trial Court on 2‑7‑1983 adjudicated that both the previous orders regarding the extension of time granted for depositing Rs.50,000 were ‑ perfectly correct. The petitioner has sought the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by assailing the orders of the lower Courts, dated 15‑2‑1982 and 2‑7‑1983.

3. In Amir Bakhsh and 12 others v. Ghulam Muhammad and another P L D 1978 B J 7 and Niaz Ali v. Ibrahim P L D 1976 Lah. 1057, it was held that the discretion for extending time for depositing one‑fifth of the pre‑emption money or for making up deficiency of the court‑fee should not be exercised unless good cause is shown and it cannot be granted as a matter of course to cover negligent conduct or wilful default particularly in pre‑emption cases. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not grudge this proposition of law but has contended that the extension was granted to the plaintiff‑respondent on good and sufficient cause. In Abdul Wahid etc. v. Ibrahim etc. PLD 1966 (W.P.) B J 8, it has been held that pre‑emption suits are of predatory nature and constitute a drawback on the freedom of contract and the security of title and when the plaintiff fails to deposit the pre‑emption money as ordered by the Court within specified time, it calls for consequences mentioned in section 22(4) of the Pre‑emption Act.

4. The suit‑ was instituted on 27‑10‑1981 and it was ordered the Rs.50,000, one‑fifth of the pre‑emption money may be deposited before 15‑12‑

981. The plaintiff‑respondent had enough time to deposit this amount. A pre‑emptor is required to be ready with the money and the reason of low yield of one crop was not a good cause for the extension of time. The respondent's husband was suffering from peptic ulcer, but if he, during his ailment, could institute a snit, I see no reason why he could not arrange for the deposit of the requisite amount Both the reasons given in the‑ petition of the plaintiff are not sound and genuine. Secondly, the plaintiff who was directed to deposit the requisite amount by 16‑2‑1982 on an extended date, could not do so on account of two reasons that she had delivered a child and her husband was sick. Both the reasons given in the said petition are falsified and negated by the fact that in another suit namely Mst. Shame Begum v. Muhammad Bashir, Mst. Shama Begum applied on 15‑2‑1982 that Rs. 32,000, one‑fifth of the pre‑emption money may be allowed to be deposited. The said application is Annexure 'L' and Rs. 32,000 were deposited in the Treasury on the same .date. When she could deposit Rs. 32,000 on 15‑2‑1982, she could, have deposited Rs. 50,000 despite her indisposition of health and the sickness of her husband.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that the notice was not served to the petitioner on both the occasions when the time for the deposit of the requisite amount was extended but on a subsequent application moved by the petitioner, he was heard and in this manner, the non‑service of a notice on previous two occasions was of no consequence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not seriously objected to this proposition of law. Suffice to say that the plaintiff was not ready with the money and she had been coining excuses for the grant of extension for depositing 1/5 of the pre‑emption money. No good cause was shown for the extension of time on both the occasions and the learned lower Courts failed to exercise jurisdiction properly which vested in them. They did not take into consideration the fact that by the non‑deposit of one‑fifth of the pre‑emption money, a valuable right accrued to the vendee to retain the land in dispute. The decision of the learned Civil Judge, dated 2‑7‑1983 may have been different if the requisite money had not been deposited and the last extension. had not been granted by his Senior Officer, the Senior Civil Judge. I think that the learned trial Court was prompted to pronounce the impugned order, dated 2‑7‑1983 without good cause having shown to him. I, therefore, accept this revision petition and set aside both the orders, dated 15‑2‑1982 and 2‑7‑1983 and reject the plaint filed by the respondent‑plaintiff. Due to the legal intricacies involved in this revision petition, I make no order as to costs. M ' Y' H' Petition accepted.