' This civil revision arises from the judgment and decree dated 18th November, 1982 of the learned Additional District Judge, II-Muzaffargarh, confirming the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Kot Adu, decreeing the suit for possession through pre-emption filed by Bashir Ahmad respondent No, .1 against Piara Khan petitioner.
2. The facts leading up to this revision in brief are that Piara Khan, petitioner herein, had purchased land measuring 39 Kanals from Muhammad Hasan through mutation No, 3550. Bashir Ahmad respondent No, 1 and Iqbal Ahmad Khan filed suits for possession through preemption as rival pre- emptors which were consolidated by the learned trial Court. Piara Khan petitioner contested the suits by raising preliminary objections and denying the averments of the plaints. On the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :- {{URDU TEXT}} ' On issues N os. 1, 2 and 3, the trial Court held that the suit of Bashir Ahmed-respondent No, I was not under valued for the purpose of jurisdiction and court-fee, whereas, the suit of Iqbal Ahmad Khan, being undervalued was barred by time. Issue No, 4 was decided against Iqbal Ahmad Khan, the rival Pre-emptor, issue No, 5 was decided against the plaintiff, on Issue No, 6, the trial Court held that both the rival pre-emptors have superior rights of pre-emption qua Piara Khan petitioner/vendee, on issues No 7 and 8, the trial Court held that the property was sold for Rs, 15,000 which was fixed in good faith and was actually paid by the vendee to the vendor-Issues Nos. 9 and 10 were decided against the defendant, on issue No, 11, the trial Court decreed the suit for possession by pre-emption in favour of Bashir Ahmad respondent No, 1 subject to his payment of Rs, 15,000 as sale price of the land.
3. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree Piara Khan petitioner-vendee and Iqbal Ahmad Khan rival Pre-emptor filed appeals before the learned Additional District Judge. Piara Khan petitioner challenged the findings on issue No, 6 alone while Iqbal Ahmad Khan, rival pre-emptor, challenged the findings of the trial Court on Issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The learned Additional District Judge, however, endorsed the findings of the trial Court on Issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 and dismissed both the appeals on 8th November, 1982. Hence this revision by Piara Khan petitioner against Bashir Ahmad respondent No, 1 and the learned. Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh. Respondent No, 2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the physical possession of the land was delivered to Piara Khan petitioner on 11th August, 1971 when mutation No, 3550 was got entered by Muhammad Hassan vendor and that the statements of Muhammad Hassan vendor and Piara Khan petitioner/vendee, wherein they admitted the sale, the payment of the sale price and the delivery of possession, was attesed by the Revenue Officer on 24th August, 1971, therefore the suit for possession through pre-emption, which was filed on 12th September, 1972, i. e. After one year of the date of physical possession and the attestation of the statements, was obviously barred by time.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel with care. As far his plea that since the physical possession was given on 11th August, 1971 the limitation would run from that day the learned counsel has admitted before me that Plan Khan petitioner/vendee was in possession of the land as a tenant before the sale. It is, thus, clear that the possession of Piara Khan, if any, being not under the sale, the limitation would run from the date of the attestation of the mutation, within the meaning of section 30 of the Limitation Act. Going through mutation No, 3550, I find that the order dated 24th August, 1971 reads as follows:-- {{URDU TEXT}} The bare reading of these proceedings makes it clear that the further proceedings in the mutation were adjourned for the verification of `Girdawar'. The mutation was again placed before the Revenue Officer on 12th September, 1971 when {{URDU TEXT}} was approved in the Register of Mutations maintained under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that for the purpose of limitation within the meaning of section 30 of the Limitation Act, the mutation No, 3550 was attested on 12th September, 1971 and not on 24th August, 1971 and as such the suit filed by Bashir Ahmad on 12th September, 1972 was well within time.
6. For what has been stated above there is no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel. No, other point has been agitated before me. This revision is, therefore, dismissed in limine.