2000 PLP 808 (CLC)

This revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner to call in question the judgment and decree, dated 27‑1‑1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Pakpattan dismissing the appeal and revision of the petitioner against the judgment and decree, dated 21‑12‑1998 dismissing the suit of the petitioner for non depositing of 1/3rd of the sale price of the suit property within a period of one month given by the Court.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are to the effect that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit for possession through pre‑emption on a sale of land measuring 65 Kanals situated in Chak No.26/SP, Tehsil and District Pakpattan Sharif vide mutation of Sale No. 1176, dated 17‑7‑1998 by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 for a consideration of Rs.10,00,

000. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 16‑11‑1998 and the Court had directed the petitioner/plaintiff to deposit the 1/3rd sale price of the suit land within a period of one month. The petitioner failed to comply with the order of the Court and defaulted in depositing 1/3rd sale price of the suit land ,and the trial Court vide order, dated 23‑12‑1998 dismissed the suit

3. The petitioner filed an application for the extension of time for the deposit of 1/3rd Zar‑e‑Soim of sale price and the Court vide order, dated 21‑12‑1998 dismissed the same. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the order of dismissal of the application and appeal against the order of dismissal of the suit. Both the revision and appeal were heard together by the learned Additional District Judge, Pakpattan and vide consolidated judgment, dated 27‑1‑1999 dismissed the revision petition and appeal and maintained the order of dismissal of the application and suit by the trial Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Courts below had the jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing the pre‑emption money (Zar‑e‑Soim) especially when the petitioner had moved an application before the expiry of the period granted by the trial Court and that the order of dismissal of the suit of the petitioner is too harsh.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

6. Section 24 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1991 enunciates as under:‑‑ Plaintiff to deposit sale price of the property.‑‑‑ (1) In every suit for pre‑emption, the Court shall require the plaintiff to deposit in such Court one‑third of the sale price of the property in cash within such period as the Court may fix: Provided that such period shall not extend beyond thirty days of filing of the suit: Provided further that if no sale price is mentioned in the sale‑deed or in the mutation, or the price so mentioned appears to be inflated, the Court shall require deposit of one‑third of the probable value of the property. (2) Where the plaintiff fails to make a deposit under subsection (1) within the period fixed by the Court, or withdraws the sum so deposited by him, his suit shall be dismissed. (3) Every sum deposited under subsection (1) shall be available for the discharge of costs. (4) The probable value fixed under subsection (1) shall not affect the final determination of the price by the pre‑emptor.

7. The Court had granted time to the petitioner for the deposit of 1/3rd of the sale price within a period of one month and this order was not complied with by the petitioner, instead an application for extension of time was moved. The Court then dismissed the suit.

8. From the plain reading of section 24, it is manifestly clear that the time for the deposit of 1/3rd of the pre‑emption money cannot be extended by the Court. A restriction was imposed on the power of the Court by the Legislature and it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Haji Rana Muhammad Shabbir Ahmed Khan v. Government of Punjab Province, Lahore PLD 1994 SC

1. The Legislature while framing section 24 of the Act has perhaps taken into consideration the long period of litigation, which is normally spent before the final decision of the suit of pre‑emption. If Imam Muhammad could have subjected the right of pre‑emption to the condition of depositing the sale price, while the legal suits in those days used to conclude within few days time, that Legislature of today can put such condition for the more obvious reason that non‑depositing of the sale price may encourage the frivolous suits of pre‑emption". ,

9. It has been held in case of Awal Noor v District Judge, Karak and 8 others 1992 SCMR 746 that time for the deposit of 1/3rd of pre‑emption money has been fixed by the statute itself and it cannot be extended by the Court". This principle was followed by the Lahore High Court in case of Muhammad Ismaeel v. Jameel‑ur‑Rehmad and 6 others 1995 MLD 1011. It is the judicial dignity to follow the principle laid down by the apex Court of the country and 1, am in the agreement with the dictum laid down in case Awal Noor v. District Judge, Karak and 8 others (supra) which is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Since the time for the deposit of 1/3rd of the pre‑emption money has been fixed by the statute, so the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the petitioner for non‑ compliance of the order of depositing of Zar‑e‑Soem. Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that there is no illegality in the impugned judgments and decrees of the lower Courts which are unexceptionable.

10. For the foregoing reasons, I see no force in the revision petition, which is dismissed in limine. Q.M.H./M.A.K./I‑122/L Petition dismissed.