2017 PLP 314 (YLRN)

MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J.

The petitioners have called in question the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2006 passed by the learned first appellate Court, whereby it while accepting the appeal of the respondent, extended time as sought for by the respondent hence this revision petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit on 28.06.2005 for possession through pre-emption of land measuring 19-K, 06-M on the basis of his being co-sharer and owner of adjacent land. The learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 28.06.2005 directed the respondent to deposit Zar-e-Soem amounting to Rs.1,33,334/- by 25.07.2005. The respondent failed to deposit Zar-e-Soem within the time stipulated by the learned trial Court. However, the case was adjourned for 25.09.2005 for production of proof regarding the deposit of Zar-e-Soem. The respondent on the said date filed an application for extension of time on the ground of illness to deposit the Zar-e-Soem and it is also brought to the notice of the Court that the respondent deposited Zar-e-Soem on 26.07.2005 with the delay of one day. The application for extension was resisted by the petitioner by way of filing the written reply. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.02.2006 dismissed the suit of respondent. The respondent filed an appeal, assailed the judgment and decree before the learned District Judge Attock, which was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge Attock, who vide his impugned judgment and decree dated 17.05.2006, accepted the appeal of the respondent, consequently, extended the time as sought for by the respondent and remanded the case to the learned trial Court for its decision on merits hence this revision petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned first appellate Court while accepting the appeal of the respondent has travelled beyond its jurisdiction as he violated the mandatory provision of Section 24 (1) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991. Further submits that the time once stipulated by the Court could not be extended unless any exigency has not been substantiated. To substantiate his contention he has placed reliance on Muhammad Sultan v. Muhammad Ali Raja (2002 SCMR 1108), Rehman-ud-Din and another v. Sahibzada Jehanzeb (2004 SCMR 418) and Raja v. Tanvir Riaz and others (2006 CLC 1455).

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Qasim Ali v. Khadim Hussain through Legal representatives and others (PLD 2005 Lahore 654). Submits that the learned first appellate Court has not committed any illegality and irregularity, while extending the time to deposit Zar-e-Soem it was not beyond thirty days provided under the statute, therefore, the judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court is in consonance with the provision of law hence this revision petition has no merits and is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case as well as the case law referred by both the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The bare reading of provision of Section 24 of Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 reveals that the 1/3rd amount of the total consideration has to be deposited within 30 days from the institution of the suit, and the Court has ample power to extend its order of deposit of 1/3rd amount but not beyond 30 days. Hence it is concluded that the learned first appellate Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity while allowing the appeal of the respondent, who deposited the 1/3rd amount of total consideration within 30 days as stipulated by section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991. As the extension, if any, can be made by the Court within 30 days of the institution of the suit but the said court has no jurisdiction to extend the period for the said deposit beyond 30 days of the institution of the suit. Therefore, this petition has no merits hence dismissed. No order as to costs. ZC/G-2/L Revision dismissed.