2009 PLP 1384 (YLR)

ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.

This civil revision is directed against the judgment dated 17-1-2008 passed by the learned Appellate Court, whereby the learned Appellate Court accepted the appeal filed by the respondent and directed the learned trial Court to decide the case on merits.

2. Shortly the facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that the respondent instituted a suit for possession while exercising the right of pre-emption regarding the agricultural land situated hi District Sheikhupura on the basis of the right of pre-emption. The learned trial Court under the provisions of section 24 of the Pre-emption Act direct the respondent to deposit the amount of Zar-e-Soem within the stipulated period but the same could not be deposited by the respondent, therefore, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit.

3. Respondent being aggrieved of the said judgment preferred an appeal, which was accepted, directing the learned trial Court to decide the matter on merits. Hence this revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned appellate Court has misinterpreted section 24 of the Pre-emption Act while accepting the appeal. Next contended that the respondent in any case was statutorily bound to deposit the Zar-e-Soem within 30 days, and further, as per terms of the aforesaid section, the learned trial Court had no jurisdiction to extend the time, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly non-suited, the respondent whereas the learned appellate Court without applying its judicious mind has allowed the appeal. Reliance is placed on Abdul Haleem v. Muhammad Tahir Khan, (2007 YLR 2176), Manzoor Hussain v. Muhammad Siddique and 2 others (2005 YLR 2544), Mian Muhammad Talha Ali, v. Mian Muhammad Lutfi (2005 SCMR 720) and Mumta Ahmad Khan v. Ghulam Nabi and others (2005 SCMR 726).

5. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings of the learned appellate Court and submitted that the respondent deposited the amount of Zar e-Soem within 30 days as stipulated by law, therefore, the learned appellate Court did not commit any illegality by allowing the appeal. Reliance is placed on Ghulam Hassan v. Jamshaid Ali and others 2001 SCMR 1001, Fazal Elahi v. Noor Ahmed and 2 others PLD 2006 Lahore 318, Zila Council, Jhang, District Jhang v. Messrs Daewoo Corporation, Kot Ranjeet, Sheikhupura 2001 SCMR 1012 and Fazal Elahi v. Noor Ahmed and 2 others PLD 2006 Lahore 318.

6. Upon the examination of the record it is found that the respondent filed suit on 8-12-2006 and was directed to deposit the Zar-e-Soem within 30 days as stipulated in section 24 of the Pre-emption Act. The respondent deposited Zar-e-Soem on 13 8-1-2007 because of the reasons that on 7-1-2007, was the public holiday. It is also noted that admittedly the respondent was directed to deposit Zar-e-Soem on 8-12-2006, therefore, the time of 30 days is to be commenced from 9-12-2006 as under the law the day on which the order to deposit the Zar-e-Soem was issued is to be excluded, therefore, the respondent did not commit any illegality or mistake to deposit the Zar-e-Soem on 8-1-2007. I am fortified and guided by the principle laid down in Fazal Elahi v. Noor Ahmed and 2 others PLD 2006 Lahore 318, which is reproduced as under:-- S.24

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Pre-emption

Computa tion of thirty days time

Suit filed by pre-emptor was concurrently dismissed by Trial Court and Appellate Court for the reason that Zar-e-Soem was deposited on the 31st day of filing of the suit

Plea raised by pre-emptor was that the first day when the suit was filed, had to be excluded in computing the 30 days time

Validity

Day on which the order was passed by Trial Court directing the pre-emptor to make deposit should be excluded thus by exclusion thereof, the deposit made by pre-emptor would be within 30 days time

No delinquency and default could be attributed to pre-emptor, therefore, dismissal of the suit by Trial Court for non-compliance of deposit of Zar-e-Soem was illegal and without jurisdiction

Judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below were set aside

Petition was allowed in circumstances." The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are related to the proposition, wherein it is ruled that the learned trial Court under section 24 of the Pre-emption Act has no discretion to extend the time beyond 30 days. In this case, the learned appellate Court did not extend the stipulated time but awarded the allowances given by law to the respondent, therefore, no illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional defect was committed by the learned appellate Court while allowing the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not otherwise pointed out any such illegality, therefore, I see so merit in this case to exercise the revisional jurisdiction.

7. Resultantly this petition has no force and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./S-43/L Petition dismissed.