' MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---Through this single judgment, we intend to dispose of two Writ Petitions bearing No, 2057 of 2010 and 2171 of 2010 having a common question of law involved in both the petitions.
2. The petitioner herein being a pre-emptor, filed two different pre-emption suits on 9-10-2009 against sale-deeds dated 11-6-2009 and 10-6-2009, has impugned the findings of the revisional Court dated 17-4-2010 whereby his plaints of both the suits were rejected being barred by limitation provided for filing of pre-emption suit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the period of time is computed from the date of registration of the sale-deed dated 9-10-2009, institution of the suit is well within the prescribed period of limitation. So, the order passed by the revisional Court is against the law and record of the case which requires to be set aside and the case be sent back for trial in accordance with law on merits.
4. As against that, learned counsel for the defendant/respondent submitted that under the law, the time has to be calculated from the date of registration of the sale-deed. By explaining his submission, he was of the view that date of registration of sale-deed has also to be calculated and as such if the period of time is calculated from the date of registration of the sale-deed, his suit was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, hence the order of rejection of plaint passed by the revisional Court was well within its jurisdiction and in accordance with law and requested for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. First of all we would like to discuss Writ Petition No, 2057 of 2010 being earlier in sequence. The same would reveal that the sale transaction was effected through a registered sale-deed dated 11- 6-2009 and a pre-emption suit was filed by the petitioner on 9-10-2009 which after calculation would clearly suggest that the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner was filed well within the period of limitation i.e, a period of 120 days, provided for filing of pre-emption suit under section 31 of N.-W.F.P.
Pre-emption Act, 1987. The calculation and computation of time period is settled under the West Pakistan General Clauses Act of 1956. As per section 8 of the Act, the day on which the sale transaction takes place has to be excluded and count will start from the very next day which would be the first day of the said count and the day on which the suit, appeal or application is filed would be the last day of count and that has to be included. Section S of General Clauses Act, 1956 reads as under:-- "(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""
6. The provisions of section 8 are clear in its substance. Similar way of counting the period of limitation has also been provided in subsections (1) and (2) of section 12 of Limitation Act, 1908 and it is universally accepted and admitted way of counting a period of time. The same procedure would be applied to every such counting, like counting the period of making of Talb-i-Ishhad from the date of knowledge and making of Talb-i-Muwathibae.
7. After excluding the first day of registration of the sale-deed, and including the day when the suit was filed, then it becomes crystal clear that instant suit was instituted on 120th day i.e, the last day of limitation which is well within the prescribed period. So, in this view of the matter, the decision made by the revisional Court in the case of Writ Petition No, 2057 of 2010 is apparently against the law and record of the case which has resulted into miscarriage of justice and unlawful exercise of jurisdiction.
8. As far as the other connected Writ Petition No,2171 of 2010 is concerned, that is the outcome of a separate suit of pre-emption wherein sale transaction was effected on 10-6-2009 and the suit was filed on 9-10-2009. The calculation and computation of time in the light of above discussion by keeping in mind the counting procedure, undisputedly it becomes clear that pre-emption suit in this case was filed on 121st day of limitation which is beyond the period of limitation. So, the jurisdiction exercised by the Court is in accordance with law which requires no interference.
9. The decision made by the revisional Court was regarding application of provisions of Rule 11 of Order VII of C.P.C. This would also not be out of place to discuss the observations/views of the trial Court. The trial Court had refused to reject the plaint under the provisions ibid on the plea that the matters which require further probe through recording of evidence should not be dealt with summarily under the provisions ibid. Such view of the trial Court is quite in accordance with the settled view of the superior Courts of the country. But the provisions under Rule 11 of Order VII of C.P.C. Can well be applied, when the matter before the Court is quite clear and visible on the face of the record and determination of the same does not require further proof of the same through recording of evidence. If the same analogy is applied to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, in spite of the fact that question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and normally decision of issue of limitation requires some further probe by way of recording of evidence but in a situation like one in hand, application of Rule 11 ibid is quite justified under the law as determination of such a question requires no further probe and evidence. It is just a question of calculation under the procedure discussed above.
10. So, what has been discussed above, we have no doubt in our mind that the jurisdiction exercised by the revisional Court in the case of Writ Petition No, 2057 of 2010 is wrong and against the law, hence by allowing this writ petition, we hereby set aside the findings of the learned revisional Court and send back the instant case to the trial Court for decision of the preemption suit in accordance with law on its merits whereas Writ Petition No, 2157 of 2010 is dismissed and the findings of the revisional Court are maintained.