' ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.--- As against the sale of land measuring 119-Kanals, 7-Marlas situated in Mouza Qilla Sattar Shah Tehsil Ferozewala District. Sheikhupura by Zafar lqbal etc. In favour of the respondents/defendants Nos.3 to 7 through a registered sale-deed dated 25-4-2006 for a consideration of Rs,70,00,000/-, the petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit for possession through pre- emption on 11-8-2006. The plaint was put up before the trial court on 2-9-2006 when the respondents/defendants were summoned for 11-9-2006 and the petitioner/plaintiff was required to deposit Zar-e-Soam before the date fixed. The petitioner/plaintiff filed an application before the Civil Court on 7-9-2006 for further extention of time for deposit of. Zar-e-Soam which was allowed and he was directed to deposit the Zar-e-Soam by 16-9-2006. On 30-9-2006 petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order I, Rule 10 read with section 151, C.P.C. For impleading respondents Nos.5 to 7 as a party to the suit and the said application was accepted vide order dated 7-10-2006.
The defendants Nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Read with section 24(1) and (2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 for dismissal of the suit as according to them the petitioner/plaintiff failed to deposit the Zar-e-Soam within one month of the filing of the suit. The application was dismissed by the civil court vide order dated 18-6-2007 and a revision petition filed against the said order was allowed by the Addl. District Judge, Ferozewala through the impugned judgment dated 23-6-2010. The operative part whereof is as follows: --- "Cumulative effect of the above .Discussion is that order of deposit of 1/3rd by trial court beyond 30 days is unlawful. Court is not justified for extending time for deposit of 1/3rd of sale price and trial court has no jurisdiction to extend time beyond 30 days of institution of the suit. As already discussed by virtue of section 24 if plaintiff failed to deposit 1/3rd within period prescribed then suit would be dismissed. Therefore, no amount could be ordered to be deposited beyond thirty days.
Hence the direction issued by the trial court for further deposit in this case was also unlawful, accordingly the said order dated 2-9-2006 as well the further order dated 7-9-2006 for depositing the amount are set aside. Resultantly, the suit deemed to be dismissed for non-deposit of amount under section 24 of the Pre-emption Act 19.91. Revision petition stands accepted accordingly."
2. The contentions of the counsel for the petitioner are that the suit was filed during summer vacations on 11-8-2006 and it was put up before the trial court on 2-9-2006 when summonses were issued to the respondents/defendants and an order was passed requiring the petitioner/ plaintiff to deposit the 1/3rd of the sale price, therefore, the petitioner/ plaintiff deposited Zar-e- Soam within 30-days from 2-9-2006 and thus he was not at fault, that the order passed by the civil court for extension in time for deposit of Zar-e-Soam has illegally been set at,naught by the revisional Court through the impugned order.
3. Conversely, the contentions of the counsel for the respondents/defendants are that the civil court had no authority under law to extend the period for deposit of 1/3rd of the sale price.
4. Arguments of the counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused.
5. Deposit of 1/3rd of the sale price in a suit for possession through pre-emption is regulated by section 24 of the Punjab Preemption Act 1991 which is re-produced as under:- "24. Plaintiff to deposit sale price of the property.-- (1) In every suit for pre-emption the Court shall require the plainUff to deposit in such Court one-third of the sale price of the property in cash within such period as the Court may fix: ' Provided that such period shall not extend beyond thirty days of the filing of the suit: ' Provided further that if no sale price is mentioned in the sale-deed or in the mutation, or the price so mentioned appears to be inflated, the Court shall require deposit of one-third of the probable value of the property.
(2) Where the plaintiff fails to make a. Deposit under subsection (1) within the period fixed by the Court, or withdraws the sum so deposited by him, his suit shall be dismissed.
(3) Every sum deposited under subsection (1) shall be available for the discharge of costs.
(4) The probable value fixed under subsection (1) shall not affect the final determination of the price payable by the pre-emptor. "
6. Bare reading of section 24 ibid makes it manifestly clear that it is the duty incumbent upon the civil court to require the plaintiff to deposit 1/3rd of the sale price within 30-days of the institution of the suit.
7. The period of limitation for a suit to enforce the right of preemption is four months from the date mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 30 of the Pre-emption Act, 1991 and for the said purpose, the date of institution of the suit would be the day when the plaint is presented to the Ministerial staff of the court and an endorsement is made thereon about its receipt. On the other hand, the period for deposit of Zar-e-Soam is to be reckoned from the day when the suit is entered into the register meant for the said purpose and placed before the Presiding Officer for taking cognizance of the same. In the case in hand, the plaint was registered on 2-9-2006 and the civil court took its 'cognizance on the said day, therefore, the period of limitation for the purpose of deposit of Zar-e-Soam would be reckoned from the day when the suit was registered and the Court took its cognizance'at the first time and not from the day when the same was received by the Ministerial staff. The petitioner/plaintiff deposited the Zar-e-Soam well within the period of 30-days of the taking of the cognizance by the Civil Judge on 2-9-2006. The Revisional Court was not justified in setting aside the well reasoned order of the civil court through the impugned judgment.
In the circumstances, this petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Addl. District Judge is declared to have, been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The result would be that the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff before the civil court would be revived for its disposal on merits strictly in accordance with law.