' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- For the purpose of this judgment reference to pleaded facts would not be necessary. Suffice it to say that on 26-10-2001 the petitioner filed a suit for possession by preemption of the suit-land purchased by the respondents vide a registered sale-deed dated 30- 6-2000 for a consideration of Rs,4,50,000. The plea of the petitioner was that the market value of the land is Rs,2,50,000. The suit came up before the learned trial Court after office report On 27-10- 2001 it was registered. Notices were issued to the defendants and following direction was issued:--- ' It is an admitted position on the record that this amount was deposited by the petitioner on 26-11- 2001.
2. The respondents raised objection that the said amount has not been deposited within thirty days of the institution of the suit in terms of section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The learned trial Court upheld the said objection. According to it the amount should have been deposited on or before 24-11-2001. The suit was accordingly dismissed on 22-2- 2006. A first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Daska on 2-11-2006.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that his client had complied with the directions issued by the learned trial Court and he could not have been penalized for doing so. Cites the case of Fazal Elahi v. Noor Ahmed and 2 others PLD 2006 Lah. 318 to urge that even going by the interpretation placed by the learned Courts below that he in fact was directed to make the deposit within thirty days of the institution of the suit the day of institution of the suit itself was to be excluded and the last day i,e, 25-11-2001 being a Sunday the deposit made on 26-11-2001 was within the said statutory period of time. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, cites the case-law reported as Raja v. Tanvir Riaz and others 2006 CLC 1455 and Syed Mushtaq Hussain Shah v. Jewan and 4 others 2007 MLD 1062 to support the impugned orders and also to urge that provisions of section 8 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956 would not be applicable in the present case.
4. I have gone through the copies of the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. Before proceeding further I deem it appropriate to reproduce here the relevant provisions of section 24 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991:- "24 Plaintiff to deposit sale price of the property.--- (1) In every suit for pre-emption, the Court shall require the plaintiff to deposit in such Court one-third of the sale price of the property in cash within such period as the. Court may fix: Provided that such period shall not extend beyond thirty days of the filing of the suit: Provided further that if no sale price is mentioned in the sale-deed or in the mutation, or the price so mentioned appears to be inflated, the Court shall require deposit of one-third of the probable value of the property.
(2) Where the plaintiff fails to make a deposit under subsection (1) within the. Period fixed by the Court, or withdraws the sum so deposited by him, his suit shall be dismissed."
' It will be seen that upon a plain reading of the said provisions it is mandatory for a Court to require the plaintiff to deposit 1/3rd of the sale price of the property in cash within a period to be fixed by the Court. The first proviso prohibit the Court from extending the said period beyond thirty days of the filing of the suit. Subsection (2) A prescribes the penalty where the plaintiff fails to make the deposit within the period fixed by the Court. It will thus, be seen that the penalty prescribed is not for violation of any statutory provision but for noncompliance of the orders of the Court to be passed in accordance with the said provisions. The said provisions were so interpreted by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mian Muhammad Talha Adil v. Mian Muhammad Lutfi 2005 SCMR 720. With reference to the case-law on the subject their Lordships thus, observed in para.8 "Indeed, he cannot be saddled with the responsibility of passing of a defective or' erroneous order on the part of the trial Court, as it is well-settled that no person shall suffer for the act or omission of the Court and the act of Court shall not prejudice anyone. In law, the respondent could be punished for his failure, had he not complied with the order of the Court and not otherwise, as contemplated by subsection (2) of section 24 (ibid)". The suit admittedly was filed on 26-10-2001 and it.Was put up before the learned Civil Judge on 27-10-2001 when he passed the order already reproduced by me above. It will be seen that notwithstanding the said statutory period of time laid down in the said section 24(1) second proviso the plaintiff is required by law to deposit the amount within time fixed by the Court and he is to be penalized if he does not make the deposit within the time so fixed by the Court. Now on 27-10-2001 the learned trial Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs,1,50,000 {{URDU TEXT}}. The learned Courts below have interpreted the order to mean that the intention of the learned Civil Judge was the amount is to be deposited within thirty days time provided by the Statute. I am afraid the order is susceptible to an equally reasonable interpretation as placed by the counsel representing the plaintiff at the relevant time i.e, within a period of thirty days to be reckoned from 27-10-2001. Going by this later interpretation the deposit was made on time rather a day ahead of it. Assuming that the order, dated 27-10-2001 sufficiently conveys to the plaintiff the meaning placed on it by the learned Courts below, even then under all recognized rules of interpretation the day of the suit is to be excluded. I may note here that in the said case of Syed Mushtaq Hussain Shah the provisions of Provincial General Clauses Act, 1956 were not brought to the notice of his Lordship and as such was not considered. In the said case of Raja 2006 CLC 1455 it was observed that when a special law provides a period and also the manner of computing of the period'the provisions of General Law were excluded. I am afraid the preamble to the said General Clauses Act, 1956 and sections 8 and 9 thereof were not brought to the notice of his Lordship. The case was decided with reference to General Clauses Act, 1897. Be that as it may, section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 as also section 9 of the Provincial General Clauses Act, 1956 excludes the application of the said provisions only in respect of act or proceedings to which the Limitation Act, 1908 applies.
5. Section 8 of the Provincial General Clauses Act, 1956 lays down that "in any West Pakistan Act it shall be sufficient for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days or any other period of time to use the word "from" and for the purpose of including the last in a series of day or any other period of time to use the word "to", while section 9 provides that if on the last day of prescribed period a Court or office is closed the act or proceedings shall be considered as done if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which date Court or office is opened.
6. I may further note here that the said tection 8 of the Provincial General Clauses Act, 1956 also did not come up for consideration before his Lordship in the said case of "Raja".
7. The said provisions of law came up for consideration in the said case of `Tani Elahi" being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it was held that the word "of", used in the first proviso to section 24(1) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 is to be construed as "from" and thus, the day of institution of the suit is to be excluded. In my humble opinion the said reasoning of his Lordship is supported by a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Yousaf 'and 3 others v. Zafarullah and another 1992 SCMR 117, wherein their Lordships construed section 8 of the Provincial General Clauses Act, 1956. Thus, even going by the interpretation placed on the said order of the learned Courts below the date of institution i,e, 26-10- 2001 has to be excluded. In fact, to my mind the day of the said order i,e, 27-10-2001 is also liable to be excluded. Be that as it may, after exclusion of the said date i,e, 26-10-2001, the deposit was to be made within thirty days i,e, 27-10-2001 to 30-10-2001 B equal to four days and 1-11-2001 to 26-11-2001 equal to twenty-six days; total 30 days. The deposit in fact was made on 26-11-2001 and as such was both in accord with the order of the Court as also the said Statutory provision. The civil revision is accordingly allowed. Both the impugned judgments and decree are set aside. The result would be that suit filed by the plaintiff shall be deemed pending in the Court of Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, Civil Judge 1st Class, Daska. The parties shall appear before the said learned Civil Judge on 12-9-2007. He shall requisition the record and proceed further to decide the suit on its merits in accordance with law.