This writ petition calls in question the order dated 2.3.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Vehari, whereby revision petition filed by Respondents No, 3 to 5 against the order of the learned trial Court dated 23.11.2006 refusing to dismiss the pre-emption suit of the petitioner, was allowed and by accepting the said application the pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991.
2. The facts in brief are that against the sale of land measuring 27 Kanals 17 Marlas situated in Chak No, 37/W.B evidenced through Mutation No, 1026 dated 30.3.2006 in favour of Respondents No, 3 to 5, the petitioner filed a pre-emption suit before the trial Court on 29.7.2006 and on the same day i,e, 29.7.2006 the learned trial Court directed the petitioner to deposit 1/3rd (zar-e-soim) of the sale price till 20.9.2006. However, the petitioner being an Advocate knowing the legal consequences. of the said order voluntarily deposited the said amount on 28.8.2006. Respondents No, 3 to 5 after entering appearance before the trial Court filed an application on 12.10.2006 stating therein that as the petitioner had failed to deposit 1/3rd of the sale price within a period of thirty days from the date of institution of the suit, therefore, his suit was liable to be dismissed having become barred by time. The learned trial Court, however, through order dated 23.11.2006 dismissed the said application holding that prima facie the pre-emption suit was within time. Said order of the learned trial S Court was challenged through revision by Respondents No, 3 to 5 before the learned District Judge, Vehari and the learned Additional District Judge to whom said revision was entrusted, vide order dated 2.3.2007 accepted the revision and dismissed the suit holding that 1/3rd of the sale price was not deposited within the stipulated period of thirty days. Hence this constitutional petition.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in, Para 2 of their application seeking dismissal of the alit, it is admitted by respondents themselves that petitioner could deposit the said amount till 28.8.2006 which the petitioner rightly deposited although through the order dated 29.7.2006 the petitioner was granted time for deposit of the said amount till 20.9.2006 yet the petitioner being himself an Advocate knowing the consequences of said deposit beyond a period of thirty days as stipulated under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 thought it appropriate to make the deposit of said amount on 28.8.2006, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge was not right in holding the said deposit beyond thirty days. It is further submitted that if the deposit made by the petitioner is to be considered beyond the period of thirty days including the date of order dated 29.7.2006 even then as on 27.8.2006 it was Sunday when the Courts as well as banks remain closed, therefore, deposit of the amount on 28.8.2006 was within the contemplation of law as contained in Section 4 of the Limitation Act as well as Section 10 of the General Clauses Act and for this reason too the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge was without jurisdiction.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondents No, 3 to. 5 has opposed this writ petition by arguing that as the petitioner failed to deposit the amount within thirty days from the date of filing the suit in terms of Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge rightly passed the impugned order dismissing petitioner's suit. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that as held by this Court in the case "Raja vs. Tanvir Riaz and others" (2006 CLC 1455), in view of specific provisions contained in Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 neither the provisions of General Clauses Act nor the Limitation Act would govern the period of limitation in a suit under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 and thus the petitioner, is not entitled to any benefit either under General Clauses Act or the Limitation Act.
5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the available record.
6. Before discussing the above noted arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I would like to hold that admittedly 27.8.2006 was Sunday as such public holiday when Courts as well as the banks were closed. Although this Court can take judicial notice of the fact as to whether 27.8.2006 was Sunday or not yet learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record copy of the Diary showing 27.8.2006 as Sunday. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed this fact, therefore, this question requires no further detailed examination. Further it is provided in Section 4 of the Limitation Act that where the period of limitation prescribed for a suit, etc. expires on the day when the. Court is closed, the suit may be instituted, preferred or make on the very day when the Court reopens. Similarly, it is an established principle of law that when certain thing is to be done or act is to be performed on a day which is public holiday, the said thing can be done or act can be performed on the day next to the public holiday. Reliance is placed on Section 10 of the General Clauses Act as 'well as the case of "Nur Muhammad vs. Sachut" (PLD 1957 Kar. 843). Further it is also not disputed either by learned counsel for the respondents nor by the learned revisional Court that said amount was not deposited on 28.7.2006 although the learned trial Court had fixed the said date as 20.9.2006 and to me if the petitioner had deposited the amount on 20.9.2006 even then the same would have been sufficient compliance of the order because it is an established principle of law that act of the Court should not prejudice any party, as held in the case 'Maqsood Ahmad and others vs. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others (2007 S.C.M.R 399).
7. Even in para-2 of their application seeking dismissal of the suit, the respondents have admitted that amount in question could have been deposited till 28.8.2006, therefore, in both eventualities whether the amount would have been deposited on 27.8.2006 or same was in fact deposited 28.8.2006 the petitioner acted strictly in accordance with law as contained in Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 and the amount so deposited by him was a lawful compliance of provisions of law, therefore, the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge dismissing the suit of the petitioner cannot sustain being without lawful authority and of no legal effect, as such this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of learned Additional District Judge dated 2.3.2007 is set aside and the plaint filed by the petitioner shall be deemed pending before the learned trial Court who will proceed with the suit after notice to the parties strictly in accordance with law.
8. Before parting with this judgment l- would like to point out that the above cited judgment of this Court (2006 C.L.C. 1455) and relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents in no way advances their case, as the point raised in the said judgment is distinguishable. Further perusal of the said judgment does not give an impression as visualised in its headnote, whereas, it is an established principle of law that neither the headnote of a specific pro- vision of law covers the said provision nor even the headnote of a judgment prepared by the law reporter would change the basic spirit of the said judgment passed on its own legal and factual plan.