2016 PLP 187 (YLRN)

AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.

Through this civil revision the petitioners/defendants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jampur District Rajanpur, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs was accepted, by way of which, the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jampur District Rajanpur, dismissing the suit for declaration filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs were set aside.

2. As per learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants the facts are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed two suits for pre-emption, which were ultimately decreed on 20.02.1979. The decree holder filed an execution petition with regard to the decree in one suit and got the decree executed through the Court and with regard to the decree in other suit there was an understanding out of the Court between the decree holder and one of the vendees (defendants) that the decree holder will not file execution petition but thereafter decree holder filed an execution petition on 21.01.1996, which was dismissed on 14.10.1999 being time barred. An application was moved before the District Collector with regard to implementation of pre emption decree which remained unexecuted. The same was dismissed by the District Collector on 28.06.2002 and thereafter on 30.02.2003 the suit in hand was filed. The written statement was filed and suit was contested. Learned trial Court framed the issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their versions. After the completion of trial vide judgment and decree dated 30.06.2003 suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court. An appeal was preferred before the learned first appellate Court, which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 14.02.2004 and suit was decreed. Hence, this civil revision by the petitioners/defendants.

3. No one is present on behalf of the respondents, therefore, they are proceeded against ex-parte.

4. The only defence of petitioners is that due to the fact that after expiry of limitation for filing the execution petition suit was not competent and was time barred. It is not the case of petitioners that the decretal amount under the decree was not deposited by the plaintiffs (pre-emptors). A decree granted by the civil Court in pre-emption suit is not an ordinary decree in the light of Order XX, Rule 14 of the C.P.C. The right in the suit property conferred upon the decree holder at the time when he deposits the sale price under the orders of Court. When it is not the case of petitioners that decretal amount has not been deposited in the trial Court, the decree holders became absolute owner of suit property. When the decree was passed on 20.02.1979 the revenue authorities were under obligation to implement the decree in the revenue record and when under the decree a pre-emptor becomes owner when the decretal amount is paid, no question that an application has been filed with a delay with the Collector to implement the decree in the revenue record. The order of refusal of implementation of decree by the Collector was wrong, therefore, the suit has rightly been filed and decreed by the learned first appellate Court. I agree with the case law relied by the learned first appellate Court. Light can be taken from the judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "PLD 2011 Supreme Court 520 (Mst. Niaz Bibi through L.Rs. v. Ghulam Mustafa and others)" and I would like to quote Para No.15 of the judgment for further guidance:- "A plain reading of above reproduced Rule 14 of Order XX reveals that for preparation and implementation of decree passed in a pre-emption suit, a particular procedure has been laid down, which provides the manner for payment of purchase money, in case it has not been paid in the Court earlier, with delivery of possession of the property to the pre-emptor and the mode and manner through which the title of the pre-empted property shall be automatically acquired by the pre-emptor from the date of payment of pre-emption money. The specific language of Order XX, Rule 14 (ibid) has been subjected to detailed discussion in some of the judgments cited by Mr. Kiani, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant, as referred to and discussed above." Further light can be taken from the judgments reported as "2009 CLC 1285 (Munshi Muhammad through L.Rs. and others v. District Officer (Revenue), Gujranwala and 2 others) and 2007 SCMR 983 (Mst. Hakam Bibi through L.Rs. v. Khushi Muhammad through L.Rs.)". A decree holder of a pre-emption suit when decretal amount has been paid, need not to file execution petition. Reliance can be placed upon "1992 SCMR 241 (Maulvi Abdul Qayyum v. Syed Ali Asghar Shah and 5 others)".

5. In this view of the matter, no case for interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 115 of the C.P.C. has been made out. Therefore, this civil revision fails, same stands dismissed. ZC/K-37/L Revision dismissed.