' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that petitioners filed a suit for pre- emption against the respondents to pre-empt sale entered through registered sale-deed dated 23-2-1988. According to the petitioners they acquired knowledge of sale on 27-1-1989, consequently issued notice of Talb-e-Ishhad on 30-1-1989 and ultimately filed suit on 21-2-1989.
Suit was contested by the respondents and the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 2-6-2001 dismissed the suit. Petitioners' appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 3-7-2003. Both these judgments and decrees are being assailed through the instant civil revision.
2. Before learned counsel for the petitioners could open his case on other merit, he was confronted with regard to question of limitation in suit, particularly with reference to judgment of this Court reported as Azizul Haq v. Muhammad Aslam and others 1995 MLD 1854, Noor Begum v. Muhammad Boota and 3 others PLD 1995 Lah. 344 and judgment of the honourable Supreme Court reported as Haji Rana Muhammad Shabbir Ahmed Khan v. Government of Punjab Province, Lah. PLD 1994 SC 1 and the basic judgment i,e, Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary, Law Department v. Malik Said Kamal Shah PLD 1986 SC 360 as to how a suit for pre-emption filed during the interregnum period beyond period of four months despite there being no codified law can be entertained.
Learned counsel has referred to Asghar Abbas and 3 others v. Muhammad Amin and 6 others 1993 SCMR 2022 to contend that limitation in a suit for pre-emption in interregnum period would remain intact as one year despite it having been declared un-Islamic by the honourable Supreme Court.
He has relied on Mehr Moman Khan v. Ghulam Abbas and 3 others 2001 SCMR 1979.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the contention and supported the judgments of the Courts below.
4. I have considered arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
5. Judgment cited as 1993 SCMR 2022 is totally on different subject and not on question of limitation, therefore, the same is not relevant. Likewise 2001 SCMR 1979 directs that during the interregnum period when there was no codified law, the suits were regulated in accordance with injunctions of Islam, however, it does not deal with the period of limitation as one year or four months. The question was not involved in the said case at all, therefore, this judgment is also not relevant, however judgment reported as 1995 MLD 1854 is applicable on all fours to the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as in the said judgment his lordship had taken note of the basic judgment PLD 1986 SC 360 and also PLD 1994 SC 1, and it was held that period of limitation for suits filed during interregnum period would be four months and not one year. Subsection (2) of section 35 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act was declared by their lordships as repugnant to the injunctions of B Islam which provided period of one year for suits in the interregnum period.
6. For what has been stated above, I find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.