| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLG 3019 1990 SLD 3019 = 1990 PLD 110 |
Writ Petition No.359 of 1989, decided on 11 th March, 1990.
Inayat Elahi Khan and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ
Mst. SAMEEN--Petitioner
VERSUS
AFGHANULLAH and 2 others--Respondents
Law:
Section:
WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.--As Mst. Sameen plaintiff/petitioner herein, filed suit for possession through pre-emption of land measuring 6 marlas 6 sarsais out of Khasra Nos. 1470 and 1471 situated in village Yar Hussain, Tehsil Lahore, District Swabi, against Afghanullah defendant /respondent No.l herein, on the grounds of co-sharership, participator in immunities and appendages such as right of way and right to discharge water and also being owner of contiguous property. The plaintiff/petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.13,334 in cash and bank guarantee for the remaining 2/3rd of the sale consideration of Rs.40,000 as mentioned in the impugned Mutation No.16661 attested on 10-3-1.988, before 4-3-1989. Since the preceding day viz. 3-3-1989 happened to be Friday, the plaintiff/petitioner submitted an application on 4-3-1989 praying that she may be permitted to deposit the entire sale consideration of Rs.40,000 in cash as the Bank did not provide her bank guarantee and that extension of four days time only may also be granted. The learned trial .fudge allowed the application and the plaintiff/petitioner deposited the entire amount in cash in the Treasury under the orders of the Court on 8-3-1989.
2. The defendant/respondent No.l submitted an application on 9-3-1989 to the Court requesting for the rejection of the plaint as the compliance of the order of deposit had not been made. The same was resisted by the plaintiff/petitioner and the learned trial Judge (respondent No.3 herein) vide his order dated 18-3-1989 rejected the application of the defendant/respondent No.l. A revision petition was filed against this order before the learned Additional District Judge 11, Swabi (respondent No.2 herein) which found favour with him and he, vide his judgment dated 17-6-1989 accepted the same, set aside the order of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner. Hence the instant writ petition calling in question the judgment of the Revisional Court referred to above.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the available record with their assistance.