1999 PLP 2098 (CLC)

Bashir Ahmed Sajjad and Syed Muhammad Javed Haider for Respondents Nos.2 and

3. Date of hearing: 21st April, 1999. Order dated 15‑6‑1995 of the learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal, has been challenged through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, whereby, he accepted the revision filed by the respondents and set aside the order of the learned trial Court, dated 13‑2‑1995, whereby, the learned trial Court had ordered the impleadment of Muhammad Latif, respondent No.3. as party to the suit.,

2. In the suit, filed by the petitioner, for pre‑emption against respondent No.2, it was pleaded that the suit land has been returned by the vendee Muhammad Rafique to the vendor Muhammad Latif. The petitioner/plaintiff then made an application before the learned trial Court for impleading Muhammad Latif, respondent No.3, as party to the suit. This application was accepted by the learned trial Court and he allowed the impleadment of Muhammad Latif, respondent No.3. as party to the suit vide order. dated 13‑2‑1995. Both the respondents, namely, Muhammad Latif and Muhammad Rafique challenged this order in revision which revision was accepted by a learned Additional District Judge on 15‑6‑1995.

3. The learned Additional District Judge took the view that the period of limitation for filing a suit for pre‑emption is 120 days hence the respondent could not sue the original vendee beyond the prescribed period of 120 days. He was, thus, of the view that the learned trial Court had not exercised the discretion judicially in accepting the application, filed by the petitioner.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional District Judge has acted illegally and without lawful authority in interfering with the discretion lawfully exercised by the learned trial Court in allowing the impleadment of respondent No.3 as party to the suit. It is contended that the learned Additional District Judge misconceived the position of respondent No.3 Muhammad Latif because he was not the original vendee, whereas, the suit against the original vendee Muhammad Rafique had been filed by the petitioner within limitation.

5. As against this, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents supports the order of the learned Additional District Judge and submits that the suit against Muhammad Latif, respondent No.3, had become barred by time as he was sought to be impleaded through an application which was made after the expiry of period of 120 days of the sale.

6. The admitted position is that sale in favour of respondent No.2 by respondent No.3 took place on 27-12‑1993, whereas, the suit for pre‑emption was filed by the petitioner on 21‑3‑1994 against the vendee‑respondent No.2. This suit was well within time. However, when the written statement was filed by respondent No.2. he pleaded that he had returned the land to the vendor Muhammad Latif. This development prompted the petitioner to make application to the learned trial Court for impleading Muhammad Latif respondent No.2 vendor as party to the suit The application was accepted by the learned trial Court who took the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case the presence of Muhammad Latif wm required for proper disposal of the suit. This order was, however, interfered with by the learned Additional District Judge in revision who took the view that the application was belated which was beyond the period of four months The view of the learned Additional District Judge seems to be not only erroneous but also illegal inasmuch as he assumed that respondent No.3. the vendor. was the original vendee. It appears that he lost sight of the fact that the suit against the original vendee Muhammad Rafique was filed well within time and it was a subsequent development, as a result. whereof, Muhammad Latif; the vendor, had to be impleaded as party to the suit. Since the right of pre‑emption was claimed against Muhammad Rafique, against whom the suit filed by the petitioner was well within time and respondent No.3 Muhammad Latif was the vendor only, the learned Additional District Judge acted on erroneous assumption on treating the application for impleading him as party as hit by section 30 of the Pre‑emption Act, 1991. The order of the learned Additional District Judge, thus, is not sustainable in law which is liable to be declared as without lawful authority. This petition, accordingly is allowed, the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 15‑6‑1995 is declared as without lawful authority. No order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1202/L Petition allowed.