AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. --- Through this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 18.5.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Bahawalpur accepting the appeal filed by the defendant-respondent and setting aside the order dated 4.2.1999 passed by learned Civil Judge, Bahawalpur allowing the review petition of the plaintiff-petitioner and setting aside judgment and decree dated 11.1.1999 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for pre- emption was dismissed for non-deposit of "Zar-e-Soem".
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.12.1998 the plaintiff-petitioner filed suit for pre-emption. The learned Trial Court entertained the suit on the said date and fixed the next date as 11.1.1999 for service of the defendant through summons and also ordered that one-third of sale price of the property be paid till the next date of hearing. On the next date of hearing i.e. 11.1.1999, vide judgment and decree of the same date the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit for non-deposit of "Zar-e- Soem". The petitioner-plaintiff on 1.2.1999 filed a review petition before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court, without giving notice to the defendant, allowed the review petition on 4.2.1999 and set aside the judgment and decree passed by it on 11.1.1999. The respondent-defendant filed appeal before learned District Judge, Bahawalpur who vide judgment and decree dated 18.5.2000 accepted the appeal. Hence this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that 11.1.1999 was 30th day for deposit of "Zar-e-Soem", therefore, the learned Trial Court wrongly dismissed the suit. Further states that the review petition was rightly accepted and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court is against law and prayed for acceptance of the revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the suit was rightly dismissed by the learned Trial Court and order passed in review petition was without jurisdiction and that the judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court is in accordance with law.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 the pre-emptor. Is bound to deposit one third amount of sale price of the property within a period of thirty days of the filing of the suit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that day of filing of suit will be excluded. I do not agree with the learned counsel on this point. The day of filing of suit shall be included in the period of thirty days as is evident from the language of Section 24 of afore-mentioned Act, which reads as under:- "24. Plaintiff to deposit sale price of the property .-- (1) ---------------------------------------- --------------- Provided that such period shall not extend beyond thirty days of the filing of the suit:"
7. When the suit was dismissed for non- compliance of the Court's order, even in the Court order dated 11.1.1999 there is no mention that the plaintiff-petitioner had sought permission or filed any application for deposit of one-third of the sale price of the property on that day. The review petition was filed after twenty days of the dismissal of the suit. Therefore, the learned Trial Court, in no, way, has the jurisdiction to allow the review petition. Allowing the review petition, in other words, in extension of time for deposit of "Zar-e-Soem" which is not permissible under the law beyond thirty days. The learned Appellate Court has taken the right view and rightly accepted the appeal.
8. Further I have noticed that even in the plaint, certified copy of which is available on the record, no time and place of "Talab-e-Muwathibat" has been mentioned. The pleading of time and place of "Talab-e-Muwathibat", without mentioning it in the plaint, cannot be established through evidence.
8. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in this civil revision. The same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their, own costs.
Civil revision .