' Petitioners/plaintiffs filed Suit No,352/1 on 25-9-2002 against the respondents/defendants in the Court of learned Senior Civil,Judge, Peshawar through pre-emption of land mentioned in the heading of the plaint. Permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants to transfer the said land was also asked for. It was during the pendency of the said suit that respondents filed an application under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of plaint being barred by time. The said application was resisted by the petitioners/plaintiffs by filing written reply. The trial Court accepted the application and vide order/decree dated 10-6-2003 rejected the plaint. Petitioners filed Appeal No,38/13 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-II, Peshawar, but their appeal was also dismissed vide judgment/decree, dated 13-9-2002. Being not contented with the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the petitioners have filed the revision petition in hand.
2. Mr. Muhammad Alam Zeb Khan, Advocate the learned counsel representing the petitioner argued that the respondents had purchased the suit property vide Mutation No,2647 attested on 30-11-2001. At the time of sale, the petitioners were out of Peshawar, therefore, they did not have the knowledge of the sale transaction. It was, however, on 29-5-2002 that the petitioners purchased some other portion of land vide Mutation No,2691. The respondents filed Suit No,333/1 for possession through pre-emption of land purchased by the petitioners through Mutation No,2691. The petitioners through the said suit filed by respondents came to know about the sale transaction in their favour (vide Mutation No,2647), therefore, they immediately made Talbs and then filed Suit No,352/1 on 25-9-2002. The suit filed by them was within time of gaining knowledge of the sale transaction in favour of respondents as no notice as required under section 32 of the Pre-emption Act had been given to them. Reliance in this regard was placed on Dr. Muhammad Ayub Khan v. Haji Noor Muhammad 2002 SCM R 219 and Ghulam Rasool v. Haroon Khan 1996 CLC 1517.
3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners has no force. Provisions of section 31 of the Pre-emption Act, 1987 are very clear. Period of limitation for a suit to enforce a right of pre- emption under ibid Act has to be filed within 120 days from the date of attestation of the mutation.
4. So far as the question of issuance of notice under section 32 is concerned, the said question came up for hearing before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Maulana Nur-ul-Haq v.
Ibrahim Khalil 2000 SCM R 1305, wherein it was held:-- ' "The next point for determination relates to the date from which the period of limitation for a suit to enforce a right of preemption arising from a registered sale-deed is to be computed. The explicit and mandatory provisions of section 31 of the Act leave no room for doubt that in case of a sale effected through a registered sale deed the period of one hundred and twenty days shall be computed from the date of registration of the sale deed. The contention that if the Registrar fails to issue public notice envisaged by the mandatory provisions of section 32 of the Act the period of limitation is to be computed from the date of knowledge by the pre-emptor is misconceived. Such a provision is neither contained in section 31 of the Act nor can be read into it in view of settled law that Court cannot supply 'casus omissus'. A comparative study of sections 31 and 32 of the Act would make it manifest that the provisions with regard to issuance of public notice by the Registrar contained in section 32 had no nexus with the period of limitation prescribed by section 31 for filing a pre-emption suit in respect of sale transaction effected through a registered sale deed and is meant to provide an extra source of knowledge for making 'Talb-i-Mowathibat' and an alternate timeframe for making Talb-e-Ishhad in accordance with subsection (3) of section 13 of the Act."
5. Keeping in view the above quoted judgment, I am clear in my mind that the suit filed by the petitioners was barred by time and the Courts below have not committed any material irregularity while rejecting the plaint. No jurisdictional error or defect could also be pointed warranting interference. Resultantly, the revision petition in hand is dismissed in limine. in limine.