1. Sajjad Ali Shah, J.--This appeal, with leave of this Court, arises from the order of the Lahore High Court whereby the learned Judge in Chambers while upsetting the order of the Additional District Judge, Ferozewala restored and remanded the suit of the respondent/pre-emptor for trial afresh.
2. The admitted facts presented before us are that the respondent/pre-emptor, on 11.8.2006, filed a suit seeking enforcement of pre-emptory rights against the appellant in respect of land measuring 110 kanals, 7 marlas, situated at Mouza Qilla Sattar Shah, Tehsil Ferozewala. District Shejkhupura.
2. Since the plaint was accompanied with an application under Order XXXIX, CPC, therefore, it was placed in Court on the same day and the Court directed issuance of notices for 2.9.2006. On 2.9.2006 the Court, while directing issuance of summons for 11.9.2006, directed the private respondent to deposit the zar-e-soim by the next date of hearing. It appears that the respondent/pre-emptor, on 7.9.2006, moved an application seeking extension of time for depositing the zar-e-soim at his own risk, which application came up before the Court on 1.1.9.2006, and the Court, in absence of appellant, allowed the respondent to deposit the zar-e-soim by 16.9.2006. This extension in time allowing the respondent to deposit zar-e-soim beyond the period of 30 days led the appellant to file an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC read with Section 24 (1)(2) of the Act, 1991 seeking dismissal of the suit on account of the: respondent's failure to deposit the zar-e-soim within the statutory period of 30 days. The application did not find favour with the learned trial Court and was rejected vide order dated 18.6.2007 on the ground that the controversy regarding depositing of zar-e-soim could be settled by framing of an issue in this behalf. The appellant, being aggrieved of the said order, filed civil revision before the Additional District Judge Ferozwala which was accepted vide order dated 23.6.2010, and resultantly the suit of the respondent was dismissed for not depositing the zar-e-soim in accordance with Section 24 of the Act, 1991. This time, the respondent impugned the order of the Additional District Judge before the Lahore High Court by invoking its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution by filing a writ petition, which after hearing the parties was accepted through the impugned order dated 11.7.2011 whereby the suit of the respondent was restored and remanded to trial Court for its decision on merit strictly in accordance with law.
3. 3.On 13.9.2012, leave was granted by this Court to examine as to whether the Lahore High Court had failed to appreciate the mandate radiating from the words used in Section 24 of the Act, 1991, and has remanded the case back, which is not only against the express provisions of the statute, but also, the dicta of this Court.
4. 4.Learned counsel for the appellant in this background . contended that the period of 30 days as provided in Section 24 of the Act, 1991 for the deposit of zar-e-soim is to be reckoned from the date of filing the suit which in the instant case was 11.8.2006 and under no circumstances such period of 30 days could be extended by the Court. On the contrary, sub-section (2) of Section 24 requires the Court to dismiss the suit on failure of such deposit. Per counsel, in the instant case, the suit was filed on 11.8.2006 and the period of 30 days provided under the law for deposit of zar-e-soim expired on 11.9.2006 and, therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to extend the time for deposit of such amount beyond 11.9.2006 i,e, upto 16th September, 2006. On the contrary, suit of the respondent ought to have been dismissed in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 1991. In support of his contention that the Court, under no circumstances, had the discretion to allow the deposit of zar- e-soim beyond the period of 30 days from the filing of the suit, learned ASC has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court, in the case titled Hasnain Nawaz Khan vs. Ghulam Akbar (PLD 2013 SC 489).
5. 5.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, without disputing the fact as pleaded, contended that the period of 30 days as provided under the first proviso of Section 24 of the Act, 1991 for deposit of zar-e-soim is to be reckoned from the date the suit is formally registered by the Court and/or when the order of such deposit is made and in the instant case the suit was registered on 2.9.2006 by directing the respondent to deposit zar-e-soim by 11.9.2006 and, therefore, the period of 30 days was to expire on 2.10.2006. The Court, therefore, had exercised its discretion to extend the time for deposit of zar-e-soim within the stipulated time period of 30 days as provided under the law. In support of his contention that the period of 30 days is to be reckoned from the date the Court directs such deposit, reliance has been placed on the order of this Court in the case titled as Raja L'S. Tanveer Riaz (PLD 2014 SC 466) and to plead that the Court had the