2006 PLP 864 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.

The instant C.M. has been filed by the petitioner/judgment-debtor for dismissal of the suit or in the alternative, issuance of direction to the decree-holder for deposit of the decretal amount.

2. The plaintiff son of Bhai Khan had instituted a suit for pre-eruption against the sale of the suit land measuring 25 Kanals in the Court of Civil Judge, Bhalwal, District Sargodha against the defendants Mst. Baigi and Muhammad Aslam which was dismissed vide judge and decree dated 24-3-1999. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, which came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge, Bhalwal. During the pendency of the appeal Muhammad Aslam, respondent No.2 had made a consenting statement on 19-6-2001 stating that he has entered into a compromise with the appellant/petitioner and admitted his superior right of pre-emption and received share of the sale consideration Rs. 1,50,

000. The appellate Court accepted the appeal to his extent and decreed the suit but to the extent of Mgt. Baigi was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved', the present petitioner preferred a revision petition, which had been accepted by the Court vide judgment and decree dated 17-9-2003.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The learned trial Court while giving findings on issue No.3 determined the ostensible sale price of the land fixed in good faith and actually paid by the defendants as Rs.4,50,000 as per market value of the suit property at the time of the sale. The findings of the learned trial Court were upheld with regard to the issue of sale price of the land. The findings of the learned trial Court with regard to the sale price of the land was not agitated by the decree-holder before this Court in the revision petition and the same had attained finality. The decree of the learned trial Court is merged into the decree passed by this Court as laid down in the case of Maulvi Abdul Qayyum v. Syed Ali Asghar Shah and 5 others (1992 SCMR 241).

5. It is admitted position that the decree-holder/respondent in the C.M. has deposited Rs.1,50,000 as 1/3rd of the sale price at the time of institution of suit and one of the plaintiff Muhammad Aslam has already received his share of the price during the pendency of the appeal out of Court. At the time of deposit of the same, the sale consideration was not determined by this Court and the decree-holder/ respondent herein has filed the execution petition. Since the ostensible sale price of the property in dispute had already been determined by the learned trial Court as Rs.4,50,000 and out of the same, the decree-holder had deposited 1/3rd Rs.1,50,000 and he also paid Rs.1,50,000 to Muhammad Aslam one of the plaintiff during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, this C.M. is disposed of with the direction to the decree-holder/respondent to deposit the remaining sale consideration less 1/3rd already deposited, if any and the amount of Rs.1,50,.000 received by one the plaintiff Muhammad Aslam within 30 days from today i.e. 17-10-2005. F.M./S-429/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition disposed of.