2005 PLP 221 (YLR)

(c) Practice and procedure

Nobody could get benefit of his misdeeds. (d) Maxim

"Ignorantia juris non-excusat "-- Ignorance of law is no excuse. Mian Liaqat Ali for Petitioner. The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption regarding the land in-question measuring 40-Kanals, 17-Marlas in the Court of Civil Judge 1st Class, Ferozewala on 28-5-1999. The learned trial Court vide order, dated 28-5-1999 directed the petitioner to deposit 1/3 (Zar-e-Soaim) pre emption amount to the tune of Rs.50,000 up till 26-6-1999. The petitioner did not deposit the Zar-e-Soaim within the prescribed period. The petitioner submitted an application on 26-6-1999 before the trial Court seeking extension in time for deposit of Zar-e-Soaim on the plea that he was not aware of the fact that Zar-e-Soaim has to be deposited till the date fixed i.e. 26-6-1999. The application of the petitioner was allowed by the trial Court and period of seven days was extended by the trial Court vide order, dated 26-6-1999 to deposit Zar-e-Soaim within a week. The petitioner deposited Zar-e-Soaim vide Bank Challan, dated 2-7-1999. It is pertinent to mention here that Presiding Officer was on leave and the petitioner secured the order of extension to deposit Zar-e-Soaim from the duty Judge. The respondent filed an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. before the trial Court on the ground that suit was filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 28-5-1999 and according to the provisions of the Pre-emption Act, the petitioner has to deposit Zar-e-Soaim within 30 days but the petitioner has deposited Zar-e-Soaim on 2-7-1999 after the expiry of 30 days, therefore, petitioner has deposited the Zar-e-Soaim in violation of the mandatory provisions of Pre-emption Act. The learned trial Court accepted the application of the respondents vide order, dated 23-12-1999. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Ferozewala, who dismissed the same vide impugned judgment and decree, dated 15-4-2004, hence the present revision petition.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that petitioner has submitted an application before the trial Court on 26-6-1999, which was allowed by the trial Court and the petitioner was granted extension of time to deposit the Zar-e-Soaim within seven days. The petitioner has deposited the Zar-e-Soaim on 2-7-1999. Both the Courts below erred in law to accept the application of the respondents under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. without adverting to the order of the trial Court, dated 26-6-1999. He further submits that nobody should be penalized by the Act of the Court and this fact was' not considered by both the Courts below in the impugned order and judgment, therefore, order and judgment of both the Courts below are result of misreading and non reading of the record as well as misconstruing the provisions of the Pre emption Act.

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record.

4. It is admitted fact that period for depositing of 1/3rd (Zar-e-Soaim) pre emption amount is fixed by the provisions of the statute itself, therefore, Court has no jurisdiction to extend the period, which is prescribed in the provisions of the law in view of the wording of section 24 of the Pre-emption Act, 1991 which is mandatory in character as per law aid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- Awal Noor v. District Judge, Karak and 8 others 1992 SCMR 746, Haji Abdul Qadir v. Zafar Shaheen PLD 1997 Lah. 549, Ahmad Baksh v. Nasir Khan and 2 others 2002 CLC 119 and Mian Asif Islam v. Mian Shahid Aslam and 3 others 1999 SCMR 1350. It is also settled principle of law that pre-emption right is very weak right and penal in nature, therefore, nobody can get the benefits of his own misdeeds. It is also settled principle of law that it is no excuse that the petitioner is not aware of the provisions of law. In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order and judgment of the Courts below, therefore, revision petition has no merits and the same is dismissed. S.A.K./A-290/L Revision dismissed.