KAMRAN HAYAT MIANKHEL, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 03.05.2014, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Haripur,. whereby the petitioner's appeal filed against the order dated 21.09.2013 of the learned Civil Judge-VII, Haripur, was dismissed.
2. Brief and succinct facts of the case are that the present petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption against the respondent, which was conditionally decreed vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2000. The condition was fully complied with by the petitioner and on 30.10.2012, the petitioner filed execution petition which was dismissed by the learned executing court vide order dated 21.09.2013 and his appeal met the same fate vide judgment dated 03.05.2014, hence, this revision petition.
3. The respondent despite service not appeared and he was proceeded ex-parte. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and gone through record with his able assistance.
4. Perusal of the record would reveal that on 06.12.1999 the present petitioner filed a suit for possession through exercise of right of pre-emption against the respondent, which was decreed in his favour by the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2000. The learned trial court directed the petitioner to deposit the remaining 2/3rd of pre-emption amount in the court within thirty days from today, which order was complied with by him on 23.12.2000. Thereafter the petitioner filed execution petition on 30.10.2012, which was dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 21.09.2013, being time barred. Aggrieved from the same, he preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which was also dismissed on 03.05.2014.
6. In a case 'where the pre-emption suit is allowed the decree must be drawn in accordance with the procedure provided by Order XX, Rule 14, C.P.C., which is reproduce as under: "14. Decree for pre-emption suit.---(1) Where the Court decrees a claim to pre-emption in respect of a particular sale of property and the purchase-money has not been paid into Court, the decree shall---
(a) Specify a day on or before which the purchase-money shall be so paid, and
(b) direct that on payment into Court of such purchase-money together with the costs (if any) decreed against the plaintiff, on or before the day referred to in clause
(a) the defendant shall deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff, whose title thereto shall be deemed to have accrued from the date of such payment, but that, if the purchase-money and the costs (if any) are not so paid, the suit shall be dismissed with costs.
(2) Where the Court has adjudicated upon rival claims to pre-emption, the decree shall direct--
(a) and in so far as the claims decreed are equal in degree, that the claim Of each pre-emptor complying with the provisions of sub-rule (1) shall, take effect in respect of a proportionate share of the property including any proportionate share in respect of which the claim of any pre-emptor failing to comply with the said provisions would, but for such default, have taken effect; and
(b) if and in so far as the claims decreed are different in degree, that the claim of the inferior pre- emptor shall not take effect unless and until the superior pre-emptor has failed to comply with the said provisions."
7. In a case of Maulvi Abdul Qayyu m v. Sayed Asghar Ali Shah and 5 others (1992 SCMR 241), it was held that a decree in a pre-emption suit is of a peculiar nature. Under Order XX, Rule 14, C.P.C. the title of the property accrues to the decree holder on payment of purchase money along with costs in the court, if any, he becomes owner irrespective of the fact whether the possession is delivered to him or not, title in the property has vested in the appellant and he is owner of the land in dispute. Viewed in this context, the respondents' opposition to the execution of the decree becomes all the more ethereal.
8. The provision of Order XX, Rule 14, C.P.C. are mandatory in nature. The decree for pre-emption is a conditional decree, wherein, the plaintiff/decree-holder has to fulfill two conditions. Firstly, he has to deposit in court the purchase money together with the cost, if any, decreed against him and secondly the deposit must be made on or before the date fixed by the court. This provision of the C.P.C. contains a penal consequence of dismissal of the suit, in case the plaintiff/decree-holder fails to make payment of the purchase money in court on or before the date fixed in the decree.
Once, the plaintiff/decree-holder performs his A part of obligation as per the directions contained in the decree, then he automatically becomes owner of the property, as such, he becomes entitled for possession. The concerned revenue authorities are bound to implement the decree for the purpose of record of right, without an order from an Executing Court. However, in case the authorities concerned fail to do the needful, then the decree holder can file an application for execution of the decree. In such circumstances, the time for the purpose of limitation would be reckoned from the date of default in performance of obligation by the authorities. The provision of Order XX, Rule 14, C.P.C. was considered in "Dr. Niaz Muhammad Mann and others v. Sheikh Muhammad Ahmad and another" (1988 SCMR 1016), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while considering the effect of the deposit of pre-emption money under Rule 14 of Order XX, C.P.C. by pre-emptor, observed that the rule provided that the title of the property shall be deemed to have accrued from the date of such payment. So the execution of decree and the withdrawal of money or its payment to the vendee was not relevant or of any consequence to vest the title in the pre-emptor. In Mst. NiaZ Bibi through LRs v. Ghulam Mustafa and others" (PLD 2011 SC 520), it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that a plain reading of Order XX, Rule 14, C.P.C. reveals that for implementation of decree passed in a pre-emption suit, a particular procedure has been laid down which provides that manner of payment of purchase money and delivery of possession of property to the pre-emptor. It was observed that from the language of Order XX, Rule 14, C.P.C., it was quite evident that irrespective of the fact that actual physical possession was received by the petitioner/pre-emptor in terms of the compromise decree or not upon payment of the pre-emption money in terms of the court decree, the pre-emptor acquires absolute title to the land. In this view of the rule as authoritatively interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases referred supra, the petitioners in this case having deposited the decretal amount in the court, so absolute title vested in them qua the property while the revenue functionaries were expected to take steps to reflect the entries in the revenue record in accordance with the decree of civil court and this exercise did not involve any element of fresh adjudication nor required any assistance or directive of the court through execution process, to do the same. In this respect, reliance can be placed on the judgment reported as Nazar Hussain and another v. Member Board of Revenue (Judicial-111), Punjab and others (2019 MLD 1876).
9. Thus in view of well-settled principle of law and dictas laid down by the superior courts, this court comes to the conclusion that on the deposit of pre-emption money in terms of Order XX, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908), the pre-emptor/decree-holder becomes absolute owner of the subject land and sanction of mutation could be made on the basis of said decree without resorting to execution proceedings and revenue authorities are under bounden duty to comply with the pre-emption decree in letter and spirit.
10. For what has been discussed above, the findings of both the lower fora, impugned through this revision petition, are not sustainable in the eye of law, and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted, the impugned judgments/orders of the learned Executing Court as well as learned Appeal Court are set aside with direction to the learned Executing Court to execute the decree within three (03) months from the date of receipt of this order.