2012 PLP 686 (MLD)

RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.

The petitioner has assailed the vires of order dated 13-5-2008 passed by the learned ADJ, Rawalpindi, whereby he accepted a civil revision filed by respondent No.3 and consequently rejected the plaint of the suit for possession through pre-emption filed by him.

2. The facts, in brief, as emerge on perusal of the record are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption in respect of the land measuring one kanal fully described in para No.1 of the plaint. It was stated that the disputed land was owned by one Liaqat Ali Chaudhry, who alienated it in favour of defendant/respondent No.3 for a sum of Rs.200,000 through registered sale-deed dated 28-12-2005 but the respondent No.3 kept the sale secret in order to defeat the right of pre-emption of the plaintiff/petitioner, who is Shafi-Sharik, Shafi-Khaleet and Shafi-Jar and as such has superior right of pre-emption qua the defendant/respondent No.3, who lacks these qualifications. He asserted that he attained the knowledge about the sale on 19-7-2006 and immediately announced in presence of Malik Munawar Khan and Muhammad Taj that he would enforce his superior right of pre-emption. It is further asserted that thereafter he served the notice making Talb-Ishhad and also made Talb-e-Khusumat through filing of the suit. It was contended that he attained knowledge about the sale on 19-7-2006 and as such the suit having been filed on 31-7-2006 was within time.

3. The defendant/respondent No.3 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint with the contention that the suit was barred by time. This application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, vide order dated 28-11-2007 on the ground that the notice under section 31 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 was not given by the concerned Revenue Officer so the limitation would start from the date of knowledge i.e. 19-7-2006. The said order was assailed through civil revision, which was accepted vide impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the learned ADJ miserably failed to appreciate that issuance of a notice under section 31 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, is a mandatory provision and non-compliance of the same by the vendee would not affect the rights of the pre-emptor adversely. It is contended that in case no notice as required under section 31 of the Act ibid is given, the limitation would start from the date of knowledge and not from attestation of the sale deed or mutation. In support of the contentions raised, reliance is placed on Mian Asif Islam v. Mian Muhammad Asif and others (PLD 2001 SC 499) and Shoukat Hayat v. Liaquat Khan (2005 YLR 60) (Lahore).

5. Conroverting these arguments learned counsel for respondent No.3 has contended that section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, clearly provides that a suit for pre-emption may be instituted within four months from the date of registration of the sale deed or attestation of the mutation. It is contended that section 31 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, does not have overriding effect qua the provisions of section 30 of the Act ibid as both these provisions are independent of each other. It is thus contended that the suit filed on 31-7-2006 in respect of the sale having been effected through registered sale deed on 28-12-2005 was hopelessly barred by time and as such the order passed by the learned ADJ does not suffer from any illegality. In support of the contentions raised, reliance is placed on Qasim Ali v. Rehmatullah (2005 SCMR 1926) and Rahm Badshah v. Zalia Khan and 5 others (2004 SCMR 1941).

6. The plain reading of section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, unambiguously reveals that the period of limitation for a suit to enforce the right of pre-emption is four months from the date of registration of the sale-deed, attestation of the mutation, delivery of physical possession if sale is made other than the sale-deed or mutation and knowledge if the same is not made in any one of the above three modes. The limitation in the present case would start from the date of registration of the sale deed, which by itself would be deemed to be a notice to the public for the purposes of institution of the suit for pre-emption. Section 31 of the Act ibid, which inter alia requires the issuance of notice by the Registering Officer of the attestation of the mutation or sale-deed is independent provision of law and has no nexus with section 30 of the Act ibid. Had the intention of the Legislature been that in case of non-service of notice by the Registering Officer, the limitation would start from the date of knowledge, it could have easily and clearly enacted so. The provisions of section 30 of the Act ibid are independent and have to be construed strictly keeping in view the text of the same. The limitation cannot be extended due to non-service of the notice under section 31 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The writ petition is without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. K.M.Z./A-30/L Petition dismissed.