1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--Civil Petition No,541 of 1981 has been filed by Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Afzal, Qutab Sher and Mumtaz petitioners; Civil Petition No,542 of 1981 has been filed by All Muhammad and Fazal Din petitioners; and Civil Petition No,543 of 1981 has been filed by Ali Muhammad petitioner against the same respondents. These three petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the same judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 5 April, 1981. As these are connected these petitions are being taken up and disposed of by this order.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that the petitioners in all the three petitions have been ejected from the disputed land which was being cultivated by them as tenants on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners was that they had filed a civil suit against the respondents claiming possession of the disputed land on the basis of pre-emption and that their suit was pending in the civil Court. Their averment was that their ejectment from the disputed land was for defeating the pre-emption suit. It was also contended that earlier petition for ejectment of the petitioners had been dismissed by the Collector on 7 November, 1978 and that subsequent ejectment by the Collector on 3 July 1980 was not justified. The aforesaid order of the Collector was upheld by the Additional Commissioner as well as Member Board of Revenue.
3. Thereafter the petitioners filed three writ petitions which were likewise dismissed by the impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the present case the respondents filed second suit for ejectment of the petitioners originally in the Court of Assistant Collector on 11 November 1979 but as he did not dispose of the case within 60 days as required under the provisions of Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Ejectment Suits)
4. Rules 1977 it was automatically transferred to the Collector on 22 January 1980 and then he disposed it of on 3 July, 1980. The argument is that according to rule 4, sub-rule (5) of the aforesaid Rules if the Assistant Collector failed to decide the case within the stipulated period of 60 days, the case stood transferred to the Court of Collector and was to be tried in the same manner as in the original Court and that the case so transferred was to be disposed of within 30 days by the Collector. But in the present case the suit of ejectment was instituted on 11 November, 1979 and it was not disposed of within 60 days. Thereafter it was automatically transferred to the Court of Collector on 22 January 1980 but then the Collector should have decide it within 30 days whereas the ejectment order was passed on 3 July 1980. Consequently since the suit of ejectment was time- barred, the order of the Collector was illegal and without jurisdiction as he had become functus officio under sub-rule (5) of rule 4 of the aforesaid rules. In this connection learned counsel placed reliance on Ashfaq Khalid etc. v. Muhammad Hanif etc. (1988 SCMR 74).
5. ' We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length but in our view the authority cited by him is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Every default gives a fresh cause of action and the present ejectment was ordered for the reason that the petitioners defaulted in the payment of rent from Kharif 1978 and Rabi 1979. It was on account of the evidence produced before the Collector that the petitioners were held to be defaulters in the payment of rent. As far the argument of the learned counsel that the ejectment suit was barred by time under the aforesaid rules, and the Collector's judgment, dated 3 July, 1980 was without jurisdiction, this objection had never been taken at any stage on behalf of the petitioners i.e, neither before the Collector, nor before the Additional Commissioner and nor before the Member, Board of Revenue. It could also not be ascertained as to whether the case was in fact transferred to the Collector on 22 January, 1980 as contended by the learned counsel; and the High Court, before which this objection does not appear to have been raised, could not hold an inquiry as to whether or not the suit for ejectment was in fact transferred on 22 January, 1980 to the Court of Collector. Furthermore in the authority cited by the learned counsel before us the objection of suit being time-barred was taken by the tenants before the Assistant Collector, i.e, that he had not decided the suits within 60 days and despite that objection he had passed the decrees for their ejectment. Since the findings of fact had been decided against the petitioners in this case, we do not find any substance in these three petitions which are accordingly dismissed.