' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.---Facts giving rise to hepresent writ petition are to the effect that the plaintiff Jawan and two others respondents Nos. 1 to 3 had instituted a suit for pre-emption on a sale of land measuring 77 kanals situated in Mauza Jangal Katora, Tehsil and District Jhang transferred through mutation of sale No,444, dated 4-11-2003 in favor of Mushtaq Hussain defendant/petitioner on 4-3-2004. The Court directed the plaintiffs/respondents to deposit 1/3rd (Zar-e-Soim) sale price of the land within thirty days and the hearing was adjourned to 3-4-2004.
The plaintiff did not deposit the "Zar-e-Soim" within 30 days. Resultantly, the suit was dismissed for non-deposit of "Zar-e-Soim" on 3-4-2004. On the same day, the plaintiff filed an application for re- call of the above-said order and the learned trial Court vide his order, dated 30-9-2004 accepted the application and restored the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioner preferred a revision petition, which came up for hearing before the learned Addl. District Judge, Jhang, who vide his judgment, dated 28-4-2005 dismissed the revision petition.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The question that boils down for determination in this case is that whether the "Zar-e- Soim"1/1/3rd sale price of the suit has been deposited within 30 days as directed by the Court. It is admitted positions that the Court had adjourned the case to 3-4-2004 vide its order, dated 4-3- 2004 with the direction to deposit "Zar-e-Soim" within 30 days. "Zar-e-Soim" was not deposited before 3-4-2004 and that is why the suit was dismissed on the said date. After dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff deposited the amount of "Zar-e-Soim" amounting to Rs.4,12,667 and filed an application for re-call of the order of dismissal and restoration of the suit.
4. Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 contemplates as under:-- "Section 24 plaintiff to deposit sale price of the property,
(1) In every suit for pre-emption, the Court requires the plaintiff to deposit in such Court one-third of the sale price of the property in cash and for the remaining two-third furnish bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Court 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 that if no sale price is mentioned in the sale-deed or in the mutation, the Court shall require the deposit of one-third ofhe probable value of the property, and a bank guarantee for the remaining two-third of such probable value:
(2) Where the plaintiff fails to deposit one-third of the sale-price or the probable value of the property and the required bank guarantee under subsection (1) within the period fixed by the Court, his suit shall be dismissed.
(3) Where the plaintiff withdraws the sum deposited by him or the bank guarantee furnished by him under subsection (1), his suit shall be dismissed.
(4) Every sum deposited under subsection (1) shall be available for the discharge of costs.
(5) The probable value fixed under subsection (1) shall not affect the final determination of the price payable by the pre-emptor."
5. ' The said provision of law has provided that the Court shall require the plaintiff to deposit 1/3rd of the sale-consideration in-cash within such period as the Court may fix. There is provision/restriction upon the Court and that is why such period shall not be extended beyond 30 days of the filing of the suit. The question that required for adjudication by this Court is whether the deposit of amount by the petitioner on 3-4-2004 was within time or beyond 30 days. From the plain reading of the relevant provisions of law (section 24) it is manifestly clear that the time for deposit of "Zar-e-Soim" amount of the sale-price shall not extend beyond 30 days and the time shall be reckoned from the date of filing of the suit. The date on which, the suit has been filed by the petitioner shall not be excluded from thecount. The day of filing of the suit (4-3-2004) shall be calculated and 30 days would be as under:-- ' 4-3-2004 to 31-3-2004 28 days to 30 days ' 1-4-2004 to 2-4-2004 2 days ' Total 30 days calculating the days of month of March and April would be ending on 2-4-2004.
6. The pre-emptor is duty bond to deposit the 1/3rd sale price within 30 days of the filing of the suit and not from the date of passing of the order. Had the order not been passed by the Court even then the plaintiff was duty bond to deposit the amount within 30 days of filing of the suit. The power of Court is restricted and the Court is not empowered to extend the time beyond 30 days of the filing of the suit. The first proviso of section 24 bars the discretion of the Court to extend the time beyond 30 days. Therefore, if the period expires on one dayearlier, then the deposit made by the plaintiff/respondents cannot be extended and no benefit can be given to the plaintiffs/respondents. In this context reliance can be made to the cases of Awal Noor v. District Judge, Karak and 8 others (1992 SCM R 746), Ijaz Ahmad Khan v. Muhammad Asif (2000 CLC 808), Jamshed Ali and 2 others v. Ghulam Hassan (1995 CLC 957) and Muhammad Jehangir v.
Muhammad Abbas and 2 others (2004 CLC 538).
7. This legal aspect of the case has not been adverted to by both the Courts below and passed the impugned orders/judgments in violation of the statutory provisions of law and the principles laid down by the Superior Courts.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is accepted and the impugned orders/judgments passed by both the Courts below are declared to have been passed illegally, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Resultantly, the order, dated 3-4-2004 passed by learned trial Court dismissing the suit is restored.