' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- Vide registered sale deed dated 22-2-1978 the petitioners purchased land measuring 3 Kanals 4 Marlas comprising Khasra No,4720/2569 for a consideration of Rs,16,000.
On 21-2-1979 Shukar Din respondent No,3 claiming to be a brother of the vendor filed a suit for possession by pre-emption-Yet another suit was filed by one Noor Muhammad. The suits were contested by the said vendees. The learned trial Court dismissed both the suits vide judgment and decree dated 16-7-1985 holding that the vendees were occupying the land as non-occupancy tenants at the time of sale. Noor Muhammad the rival pre-emptor did not file any appeal. However, Shukar Din respondent filed a first appeal, which was allowed by a learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, on 3-11-1985. He decreed the suit on payment of Rs,16,000 to be deposited till 3- 12-1985. Against this judgment and decree, the petitioners filed Civil Revision No,12 of 1986 in this Court on 5-1-1986. It came up before the Court on 7-1-1986 when the case was directed to be listed for motion hearing. On 12-1-1986 records were sent for and status quo was ordered to be maintained. The revision remained pending in motion till 1-2-2008 when it was dismissed vide judgment of the even date of this Court.
2. I may note here that the revision was dismissed for non-prosecution on 23-4-1986. C.M. No,1494- C/03 was filed for its restoration. It came up on 3-11-2003. It was allowed and the revision was restored on the same date.
3. In the said interregnum, Shukar Din respondent filed an application before the Collector, Gujranwala, praying that the decree be incorporated in the revenue records. The Collector got the copy of the decree verified from the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gujranwala and passed orders on 25-6-2002 for incorporation of the decree in the Revenue Records. Mutation No,27508 was accordingly entered on 1-7-2002 and attested on 23-7-2002. The land was mutated in favour of Shukar Din respondent..
4. Dr. Basit, Advocate/learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the period prescribed for execution of the decree passed on 3-11-1985 had long expired and as such the Collector had no lawful authority to pass the said order and the mutation sanctioned pursuant thereto is also void.
According to him, a pre-emption decree can be incorporated in the revenue records only through the process of execution. Learned counsel for respondent No,3, on the other hand, contends that the said civil revision was filed against the decree, which was dismissed for non-prosecution and the deciee was incorporated in the revenue records before it was restored. The civil revision had been finally dismissed on 1-2-2008 and as such the said decree-holder has still time to execute the decree as well. According to the learned counsel, it is the duty of the Revenue Officers to incorporate a pre-emption decree in the revenue records notwithstanding that it has not been put into execution or cannot be put into execution because of bar of limitation, as the title accrues to the pre-emptor upon payment of price as directed by the Court in terms of Order XX, rule 14, C.P.C.
Dr. A. Basit, Advocate, re-joins to state that the question as to whether the amount has been deposited is one to be decided by the Executing Court and that his client has already approached the Executing Court who has issued a stay order.
5.I have gone through the file of this writ petition as also of civil Revision No,12/86, with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. The history of the case has been stated above.
Coming to the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, under Order XX, rule 14, C.P.C., the Court while passing a pre-emption decree has to direct the pre-emptor-plaintiff to deposit the purchase money into the Court and to fix a date for the same and the title shall be deemed to have accrued to the plaintiff from the date of such payment. I have examined the writ petition as well as the petition (Annexure "I") filed by the petitioners in the Court of learned District Judge, Gujranwala. There is no allegation that the purchase money as determined by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, has not been deposited by the respondent No,3. In the writ petition, it has been stated in ground (iv) that the sale price has not been offered to the petitioners.
I am afraid there is no provision for offering the purchase money to the vendees. The same is to be deposited in Court and, of course, to be withdrawn by the vendees. In reply to my query, learned counsel for the petitioners admits that an application for withdrawal of the amount has not been made so far. Let them make the application and the amount will be released accordingly, if not already released.
6. Coming to the said contention of the learned counsel i,e, that the period of limitation having gone by, the pre-emption decree cannot be incorporated in the revenue records, the same is without any legal basis. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ali Ahmad and another v.
Muhammad. Fazal and another PLD 1973 Lah. 207 held that under Order XX, rule 14, C.P.C., the title accrues to the pre-emptor on payment of the decretal amount and is not dependent upon the delivery of the possession. The plea regarding limitation was dealt with as follows in para.4 of the report at page 213 thereof:- "4. The appellants, therefore, can succeed only if they are able to make out that section 28 of the Limitation Act is attracted. It reads as: "At the determination of the period hereby limited to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any property, his right to such property shall be extinguished." This section applies to suits, and suit as provided under section 2, clause (10) of the Limitation Act "does not include an appeal or an application". Article 182 does not prescribe the period of limitation for the institution of a suit by the decree-holder. It merely prescribed the period of limitation for an application for delivery .Of possession to him. Section 28 does not apply to applications for execution under Article 182. Therefore, if the respondent did not apply for the execution within the period of limitation, his right and title in the property which he acquired by virtue of the decree for pre-emption is not extinguished. He continues to be the owner of the land notwithstanding that he did IB not file an application for execution."
'Finally, it was held that the Revenue Authorities are obliged under the law to give effect to a decree whereunder the plaintiff has acquired title in the land. The said judgment was affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Ali Ahmad and another v. Muhammad Fazal and another 1972 SCM R 322.
7. The question as to whether the decree is also liable to be executed after the dismissal of Civil Revision No,12 of 1986 on 1-2-2008 will be looked into by the Executing Court in case the respondent No,3 files an execution petition.
8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but without any orders as to costs.