2008 PLP 159 (CLC)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

Seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell, dated 19-3-1984 the petitioner filed a suit on 1-4-1984. This suit was contested by the opponents and was decreed by the learned trial Court on 3-7-1988. First appeal was dismissed on 27-7-1995. R.S.A. No.46 of 1995 was dismissed by this Court on 23-6-1999 while C.P.L.A. No.1141/L of 1999 was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan on 13-12-2000. The decree was put into execution and a sale-deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by the learned Executing Court on 12-6-2001 and registered on 23-10-2001.

2. On 19-11-2001 the respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit against the petitioner for possession of the land, subject-matter of the sale-deed, by pre-emption. I may note here that at a later stage, respondents Nos.3 and 4 were impleaded as parties as they claimed that the petitioner has entered into an agreement promising to sell the suit-land to them. Written statements were filed by the petitioner as well as the said respondents Nos.3 and 4 who had also filed a suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement to sell. One of .the objections raised was that the suit is barred by time. The learned trial Court consolidated both the suits vide order, dated 4-4-2005 and issues were framed. The proceedings were to be conducted in the said pre-emption suit. Issue No.4 pertained to the said objection of limitation. Vide order, dated 6-12-2005 the learned trial Court decided to treat the said issue as preliminary. Evidence on this issue was also recorded in the form of documents. On 19-10-2006 after making some submissions, the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the issue be decided along with the other issues in the consolidated proceedings. Thereafter, again, an application was filed by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. with reference to the said objection. This application was resisted. Vide order, dated 21-2-2007 the learned trial Court decided that the limitation would start from the date of registration of the sale-deed. Against this order, a revision was filed by the petitioner as well as respondents Nos.3 and 4 together. This revision has been dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Shakargarh, District Narowal, on 29-10-2007.

3. Learned counsel contends that since the sale-deed was registered pursuant to a decree for specific performance, the limitation would start from the date of the said decree or from the date of commencement of execution proceedings.

4. I have gone through the copies of the records. I have narrated the entire history of this case above. The limitation, of course, is governed by section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, which clearly lays down the point of commencement of the period of limitation of such a suit. The sale having admittedly, been effected by means of a registered document, under the said provision of law, the prescribed period of limitation of four months shall commence from the date of registration of the said document. The objection, therefore, has rightly been over-ruled by the learned Courts below. I also.find that the learned trial Court has relied upon the case of Mst. Maqsood Mai v. Abdul Rashid and others PLD 2006 SC

306. I have examined the said judgment. In the said case, the pre-emptor, in fact, was a party to the suit for specific performance. A similar objection was raised by the vendees when the suit was brought for possession by pre-emption of the subject-matter of the said suit after registration of the sale-deed in execution of the decree for specific performance. It was observed that the objection is totally unfounded and that the cause of action for such a suit would accrue only when the sale-deed is registered pursuant to the enforcement of the terms of the agreement by execution of the decree for specific performance. I may further note here that apart from the fact that the pre-emptor was a party to the suit for specific performance, the other ground was that possession has been delivered prior to the registration of the sale, which itself, upon a proper proof, is a starting point of limitation under section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991.

5. In the instant case, it has simply been objected that since the sale-deed was registered in execution of the decree for specific performance, the starting point of limitation would be the date of the decree or the date of commencement of the execution proceedings. To borrow the words from the said dictum of the honourable Supreme Court, the objection, of course, is wholly baseless. The writ petition accordingly is dismissed in limine. S.A.K./G-90/L Petition dismissed.