1990 PLP 1305 (CLC)

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Pre‑emption money, deposit of ‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑ Court directed pre‑emptor to deposit pre‑emption money within thirty days, but the thirtieth day happened to be holiday and pre‑emptor deposited money on the day following holiday‑‑‑Courts below thus rightly concurred that pre‑emption money had been deposited by pre‑emptor within time and such concurrent findings could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of High Court. Khawaja Nawaz Khan for Petitioner. Hamesh Gul Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th October, 1989. Through this civil revision petition petitioner Mst. Mumtaz Begum by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 C.P.C. seeks the setting aside of the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner Mst. Mumtaz Begum filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Tank for declaration declaring her the owner of the land in suit by rendering the decree in pre‑emption suit dated 27‑7‑1983 as ineffective on the grounds that the plaintiff‑pre‑emptor in that suit, who is respondent in this petition, had failed to deposit the pre‑emption money within one month of the decree in that suit in compliance with the orgy: of the Court. In this connection it may pointed out that Abdul Wahid defendant- respondent had brought a suit for possession through pre‑emption against the plaintiff‑petitioner in the instant case in respect of the land detailed in the plaint which was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 27‑7‑1983 on payment of Rs.5,945.45 and the learned trial Court directed the deposit of the balance of the pre‑emption amount i.e. Rs.3945.45 within one month fail in which the suit of Abdul Wahid plaintiff in that suit was liable to be dismissal. The grievance of the plaintiff in the present chain of litigation is that the balance of the pre‑emption money as referred to above having been deposited by the defendant‑respondent in the pre‑emption suit on 27‑7‑1983 it on its very face was so deposited beyond 3() days and naturally the pre‑emption suit of the defendant had rendered itself as having been dimissed for failure of the compliance of the mandatory order of the trial Court.

3. It is not d "disputed that Abdul Wahid defendant‑respondent did apply to the trial Court in tire pre‑emption suit on 31‑7‑1983 for the deposit of the balance of the pre‑emotion money and the challan was prepared for such deposit on 25‑8‑1983. Excluding the date of decree in the ordinary course the balance of the pre‑emption money had to be deposited on 26‑8‑1983 which, however, happened to be earctted holiday, being Friday. It is well‑settled that an act which has to be done on a holiday if done on the following day is quite within the prescribed time limit, thus where a period is prescribed for the performance of an act in a Court or office and that period expires on a holiday then the provision of section 10 of the General Clauses Act fully considers the act to have been done within that period if performed on the following day on which the office or the Court re opens. Both the Courts below in these circumstances quite correctly concurred that the balance of the pre‑emption money in the pre‑emption suit had been deposited by the plaintiff defendant‑respondent in this petition) well within time and therefore they refused to declare the decree as ineffective in the pre‑emption suit correctly.

4. Finding no merits in this civil revision petition, it is accordingly dismissed with costs. H.B.T./1002/P Revision petition dismissed.