1987 PLP 2326 (CLC)

Malik Hadayat Ullah and 2 others v. Murad Ali Khan P L D 1972 S C 69; Niaz Muhammad Khan v. Fazal Raqib P L D 1974 S C 134; Ghulam Nabi and 4 others v. Ghulam Sarwar and others 1984 CLC 1254 and Zafar lqbal and others v. Mst. Nuhat Afzal Tareen 1984 C L C 15 ref. S. Ashiq Muhammad Khan for Petitioner. M.M. Bhatti for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th March, 1987. The petitioner purchased the land in dispute from one Syed Ata Hussain Shah. The respondents sought to pre‑empt the sale of the land in dispute on the basis of their preferential right of pre‑emption. The sale price was Rs.2,50,

000. The suit was filed on 3‑2‑1985 and it was ordered that Rs.50,000/‑, 1/5th of the pre‑emption money should be deposited on or before 10‑4‑1985. The respondents lodged a petition on 9‑4‑1985 for extension of time as they mainly depended on agriculture and could not procure money on account of the destruction of their crops. The time was extended till 2‑6‑1985 for the deposit of the said amount. It was deposited before the said date.

2. It has been conceded by both the parties that before extending the period for depositing 1/5th of the pre‑emption money, notice to the petitioner was not served. Learned counsel for the respondents has cited Malik Hadayat Ullah and 2 others v. Murad Ali Khan (PLD 1972' S C 69) in which it was adjudicated that the Court is competent to extend time either on application (oral or written) by party or even suo motu where justice so demands. But in a later precedent reported as Niaz Muhammad Khan v. Fazal Raqib (P L D 1974 SC 134), it was held that the vendee has clearly a right to be heard before extension is granted. The same principle was tepeated in Ghulam Nabi and 4 others v. Ghulam Sarwar and others (1984 C.L.C.1 1254 (Lahore) and Zafar lqbal and others v. Mst. Nuzhat Afzal Tareen (1984 C.L.C. 15 (Lahore).

3. In view of the above precedents notice should have been given to the petitioner before the extension of time granted to the respondents for depositing 1/5th of the pre‑emption money therefore, quash the impugned order of the lea ' rned trial Court dated 9‑4‑1985 and direct the learned trial Court to hear the extension application of the respondent again as the petitioner has represented that the pre‑emptors are not only the owners of the land but they are industrialists as well. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted with no orders as to costs. M.B.A./A‑165/L Petition accepted.