' MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---Instant judgment in Civil Revision No,273 of 2007 would also dispose of connected Civil Revision No,274 of 2007 between the same parties and having the same questions of law and facts.
2. The petitioners herein have impugned the concurrent findings of the two Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff/pre-emptor was dismissed by the Courts below, hence the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the two Courts below have non-suited the pre- emptor on the grounds that notice of `Talb-i-Ishhad' was not issued within the prescribed period of two weeks, so, the pre-emptor had extinguished his right of pre-emption by not performing the requisite `Talbs' as per requirement of law. The appellate Court while dealing with the appeal of the pre-emptor has only considered this aspect of the case and has failed to give its findings on rest of the issues for which he was required under the law to have decided all the issues of the case.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the vendee/respondent submitted that the computation of period of limitation provided under section 13 of N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 was correctly made by the Courts below and the suit of the pre-emptor was rightly dismissed on this score. He further contended that as the moot question was determined by the learned Court of appeal whereby the suit of the pre-emptor was dismissed, so by not giving any decision on rest of the issues in the circumstances of the case would not amount to illegality or irregularity in the decision of the learned Court of appeal and thereby supported the judgment given by the two Courts below.
5. Learned counsel for the parties were heard and record of the case was perused which transpired that the suit for pre-emption was filed by one Niamat Khan and per averments made in para 2 of the plaint, he got knowledge of the sale in question on 11-7-1997 and there and then declared his intention to pre-empt by making `Talb-i-Muwathibae and then performed his `Talb-i-Ishhad' by issuing notice under section 13(3) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 on 25-7-1997 in the name of vendee. The record would further reveal that the trial Court while giving its findings vide judgment and decree dated 16-12-2005 decided all the issues involved in the case including the one with regard to performance of `Talbs' i,e, issue No,6 and thereby declared that the notice of `Talb-i-Ishhad' was beyond the prescribed period under the law i,e, two weeks from the date of knowledge and performance of `Talb-iMuwathibae whereas the appeal of the legal heirs of pre- emptor (as the pre-emptor had died by this time) was decided by the learned Additional District Judge only by considering the material available on the record regarding issue No, 6 i,e, performance of `Talbs' by the preemptor.
6. The findings of the two Courts below on the question of performance of `Talbs' and specially `Talb-i-Ishhad' are same and identical which would reveal that while computing the period of limitation provided by section 13(3) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987, both the Courts below have fallen into an error of law. Whenever the period of time is to be computed, then such counting of days would start from the next day and such counting will be made up to the last day. As per averments in para 2 of the plaint, the pre-emptor got knowledge of the sale on 11-7-1997 and issued notice of `Talb-iIshhad' on 25-7-1997. The period of limitation in the given situation would start running against the pre-emptor from the C next day i,e, 12-7-1997 and the first day i,e, 11-7- 1997 would be excluded from the count. If period of limitation for performance of `Talb-i-Ishhad' is counted in such a manner, then the notice of `Talbi-Ishhad" dated 25-7-1997 is well within the prescribed time i,e, within two weeks as provided under section 13(3) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987.
7. The computation of time is regularized and managed by section 8 of West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956 and for convenience the same is reproduced hereunder:-- "8. Commencement and termination of time.---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 days or any other period of time to use the word "to","and a case of Abdul Majeed Khan v. Abdul Qadeer 2003 CLC 1764 can also be referred in this regard.
8. Since the findings over the issue of performance of `Talbs' specially of `Talb-iIshhad' are not in accordance with law and the Court of appeal decided the appeal in a cursory and slipshod manner without discussing and deciding the rest of the issues except the question of 'Talbs', so, the same cannot be upheld in the circumstances of the case. So, in the circumstances, remand of the case has become inevitable. Hence, both the civil revisions are hereby allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Karak at Takht-e-Nasrati and the appeals of the preemptor would be deemed pending before the Court of appeal, who should after hearing the parties, decide the appeals afresh. Needless to say that the findings to be rendered should be on all the issues including the `Talbs'. The parties to the suit are hereby directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge, Karak at Takht-e-Nasrati on 22-7-2010. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.