Through this constitutional petition the petitioner has assailed the orders dated 07.12.2011 and 09.1.2012 passed by the learned trial Court as well as learned revisional Court respectively.
2. The respondent filed a suit for possession through preemption against the petitioner on 30.7.2011.
The learned civil Court Jaranwala ordered the respondent to deposit 1/3rd of sale price within 30 days as per the price mentioned in the mutation. The respondent failed to deposit 1/3rd sale price as ordered by the learned trial Court and filed a civil revision against the order dated 30.7.2011. The learned revisional Court suspended the operation of order of learned trial Court on 06.8.2011 and directed the respondent to deposit 1/3rd of sale price as per his prayer in the suit. The respondent deposited the said amount within 30 days: The learned revisional Court vide order dated 22.9.2011 dismissed the revision and directed to deposit Zar-i-soim as per order of learned trial Court on or before 14.10.2011. The respondent deposited Zar-i-Soim as per. the order of learned revisional Court.
The petitioner instead of assailing the order of learned revisional Court dated 22.9.2011 opted to file an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC for rejection of plaint claiming that the respondent failed to deposit 1/3rd of sale price within 30 days and as such the plaint is liable to be rejected. The respondent contested the said application and the learned trial Court vide order dated 07.12.2011 dismissed the application. The petitioner filed Civil Revision against the order dated 07.12.2011 which too was dismissed IV the learned revisional Court on 09.1.2012, hence the present petition.
3.Learned counsel for petitioner submits that no Court has jurisdiction including the appellate Court/revisional Court to extend the period as provided under Section 24(4) of the Punjab Pre- Emption Act, 1991. The learned revisional Court has wrongly extended the period for deposit of Zar- i-Soim vide order dated 22.9.2011. The learned trial Court has passed the order on 30.7.2011 and the respondent was bound to deposit 1/3rd of the sale price up to 29.8.2011 as the amount was specifically mentioned in the preempted mutation. He has relied on Wazir Muhammad v. Haroon- ur-Rashid (2014 CLC 706) and Hafiz Muhammad Ramzan v. Muhammad Bakhsh (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 764).
4.Learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned orders and submits that the petitioner has failed to assail the order of learned revisional Court dated 22.9.2011 which attained finality and as such the learned trial Court is bound of the order of learned revisional Court and as such the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. He has relied on Muhammad Din and others v. Jamal Din and others (2007 SCM R 1091) and Muhammad Aslam v, Additional. District Judge and others (2013 CLC 196).
5.Heard. Record perused.
6. It is an admitted fact that under Section 24 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1991 the Court can grant maximum time 30 days for the deposit of Zar-i-Soim, however if the amount mentioned in the document appears to be inflated the Court has the jurisdiction to direct the preemptor to deposit 1/3rd of the probable value of the property. In this case the learned trial Court on 30.7.2011 directed the petitioner to deposit Zar-i-Soim according to the amount mentioned in the preempted mutation. The respondent filed revision against the said order and the learned revisional Court on 06.8.2011 suspended the operation of order of learned trial Court dated 30.7.2011 and directed the respondent to deposit Zar-i-Soim according to his assessment within the period provided by the learned trial Court. The respondent deposited the same amount within 30 days.
The revision petition against the order dated 30.7.2011 remained pending till 22.9.2011 when the learned revisional Court dismissed the revision petition and directed the respondent in the following manner:- "The instant petition is therefor dismissed with costs being devoid of legal merits. Since the impugned order dated 30.07.2011 was suspended by this Court on 06.08.2011, at the time of admission of this revision petition, therefore, the remaining payment of one 1/3rd of sale price, as per order of trial Court dated 30.07.2011, shall be deposited by the petitioner on or before 14.10.2011".
It is an admitted fact between the parties that the respondent deposited the remaining amount within the period provided by the learned revisional Court. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that no Court has the power or jurisdiction to extend the time provided in Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. This argument of learned counsel has a force but in the present case the facts are different. The petitioner instead of assailing the order dated 22.9.2011 passed by the learned revisional Court has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC with the learned trial Court for rejection of plaint, the learned trial Court is bound to honour the order of learned revisional Court and as such no option was available to the learned trial Court except to dismiss the petitioner's application. The petitioner assailed the order of learned trial Court passed on application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC dated 07.12.2011 and the learned revisional Court rightly dismissed the same on 09.1.2012.
7. It is correct that the order of learned revisional Court dated 22.9.2011 is against the law but has attained finality as the petitioner has failed to challenge the same. It is an established principle of law that void order remains in field unless set-aside by the competent Court of law. The petitioner by not assailing the order dated 22.9.2011 has accepted the same and as such the said order is binding on him unless set-aside by the competent Court of law. Two Courts below thus have rightly dismissed the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. The petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the judgments of two Courts below which can be interfered in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petition thus fails and is dismissed.