2000CLC615 (PLP)

2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred ani appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Arifwala vide judgment, dated 29‑7‑1998 dismissed the appeal in limine and maintained the order of the trial Court rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. on the ground of limitation.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the findings of the Courts below are not based on sound reasoning and Courts below have misapplied the provisions of section 30 of the Limitation Act. He further contended that the factum of the sale in dispute came into the knowledge of the petitioner on 27‑4‑1998 and the petitioner instituted the suit on 16‑6‑1998 within prescribed period from the date of knowledge of sale.

4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. Admittedly the sale in dispute was effected vide Mutation No. 1163, dated 16‑1‑1998 and the suit was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff on 16‑6 1998 about five months after the attestation of the mutation. Section 30 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1991 enunciates as under:- "

6. Limitation‑‑‑ The period of limitation for a suit to enforce a right of pre‑emption under this Act shall be four months from the date. (a) Of the registration of the sale‑deed; (b) Of the attestation of the mutation, if the sale is made otherwise than through a registered sale‑deed; (c) On which the vendee takes physical possession of the property if the sale is made otherwise than through a registered sale‑deed or a mutation; or (d) Of knowledge by the pre‑emptor, if the sale is not covered under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) or paragraph (c)".

7. The sale in dispute was effected through the attestation of the mutation of sale. The mutation was sanctioned on 16‑1‑1998 and period of limitation for the present suit will start running from the date of attestation of mutation No. 1163, dated 16‑1‑1998 and the petitioner had instituted the suit on 16‑6‑1998 about five months after the attestation of the mutation. The petitioner in paragraph 3 of his plaint had stated that he has received the information of the sale in dispute on 27‑4‑1998. Clause (d) of section 30 of Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1991 is applicable, where the sale is not made through the registration of the sale‑deed or attestation of the mutation or if the vendee takes physical possession of the property, if the sale is made otherwise than through a registered sale‑deed or mutation. The case of the petitioner is not covered under the abovementioned provisions of clause (d) of section 30 of the Limitation Act as the sale was effected through a mutation of sale. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the limitation will start running in the instant case from the date of knowledge of. the sale in dispute to the plaintiff/pre‑emptor, is misconceived. The time in the present case will start running from A 16‑1‑1998 the date of attestation of mutation. I have no hesitation in observing that the suit of the petitioner was hopelessly barred by time. There is no illegality in the orders of the Courts below, which ace unexceptionable. Therefore, there is no force in the revision petition, which is dismissed in limine. Q.M.H/M.A.K./M‑1252/L Revision dismissed.