This writ petition assails the order dated 29-5-1984, passed by the learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.
2. Muhammad Saddique, the petitioner herein, filed a suit for possession of agricultural land, the subject-matter of this litigation, by pre-emption on the basis of his superior right as tenant, in the Court of learned A.C./Collector, Samundri. The petitioner's suit was decreed on 30-7-1983 and he was required to deposit the sale price less the amount already deposited by him as Zar-e-Panjam, by 15-9-1983, failing which his suit was to be deemed to have been dismissed.
3. The petitioner could not deposit the sale price by 15-9-1983 which was factually deposited on 20- 9-1983. The vendees i.e. Respondents Nos. 2 to 6, hereinafter referred to as the respondents, preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad. The appeal was mainly based on the ground that since the pre-emptor failed to deposit the sale price by the date fixed by the learned trial Court, therefore, his suit stood dismissed in terms of the judgment/decree of the trial Court and the said Court became functus officio after passing the judgment and decree dated 30-7-1983. It had, therefore, no jurisdiction to extend the period for depositing the sale price. The learned Additional Commissioner, however, found that the pre- emptor approached the learned trial Court on 15-9-1983, for deposit of the sale price and got prepared the challan but the amount was not received by the Bank as on that day the Bank closed at 11 a.m. Although the trial Court was to function on that day for a few hours after 11 a.m. It has also been found by the Additional Commissioner that after 15-9-1983, there we're Eid-uz-Zuha holidays and the Bank functioned thereafter on 20-9-1983, on which date the sale price was duly deposited by the petitioner. Consequently, the respondents' appeal was dismissed. They, however, went in revision before the learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, who vide the impugned judgment dated 29-8-1984, allowed the revision and held that the pre-emption suit was to be deemed to have been dismissed on 15-9-1983 on account of the petitioners' failure to deposit the sale price. Thus, the present writ petition.
4. It transpires from the contents of the challan form (Annex. `C'), that this challan was prepared by the Court of A.C./Collector, Samundri on 15-9-1983 but actually the amount was received by the Bank on 20-9-1983. It has been observed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad in his judgment dated 25-2-1984, that A.C./Collector, Samundri certified that in the peculiar circumstances he allowed five days extentions to the petitioner for depositing the sale price. Ordinarily, the trial Court which passes a decree is a suit for possession of land by pre- emption on payment of the sale price determined by such Court becomes functus officio after passing the decree because in the decree, there is always a direction that the sale price would be deposited by the date specified in the decree and in case the pre-emptor failed to deposit the sale price by the speed date, his suit would be deemed to have been dismissed. The trial Court, therefore, cannot extend the period for deposit of the sale price. In the peculiar circumstances of the under consideration case, the petitioner approached the trial Court and tendered the sale price by the specified date viz. 15-9-1983. The trial Court prepared the challan and entrusted the same to the petitioner for depositing the sale price in the Bank. The Bank officials refused to receive the amount from the petitioner as the banking hours closed on that day at 11 a.m. After 15-9-1983, the Bank functioned for the first tine on 20-9-1983, because Eid-uz-Zuha holidays intervened between 15-9-1983 to 20-9-1983. The sale price was duly deposited by the petitioner on 20-9-1983.
In section 9 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956 (West Pakistan Act VI of 1956), it has been provided that where, by any West Pakistan Act, any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any Court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period, then, if the Court or office is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open. Similar provisions are contained in section 10 of the Central General Clauses Act, 1897. In case of Abdul Aziz v. Aziz-ul-Haq 1972 SCMR 296, plaintiff deposited Zar-e-Panjam a day later than that fixed by Court but otherwise having made effort to deposit money within time by getting challan passed by Court. It was held that plaintiff made valid tender to Court and it was sufficient compliance with the order of Court. In Muhammad Hayat v. Ahmad Yar PLD 1986 Lah. 270, it was held that since last date allowed to pre---emptor for deposit of Zar- e-Panjam happened to be holiday, he could deposit the same on the next day. Reference in this behalf has been invited to section 8 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act. In Nijabat Khan v.
Noor Ahmad and 7 others PLD 1957 Lah. 92, purchase money was refused to be received by bank owing to expiry of bank hours, it was held that money may be paid into bank on next day or deposited in Court within Court hours. Similar view has been expressed in Umar Hayat v. Aziz Ullah Khan etc. PLD 1956 Lah. 297 and in Rajasab Khan v. Mahmood Hussain and others 1986 CLC 1859.
5. In the light of the above discussion, it is concluded that the petitioner validly tendered the sale price for being deposited in Court on 15-9-1983, the date specified in the judgment. The amount was refused by the bank as working hours of the bank for public transaction expired by 11 a.m. In these circumstances, the petitioner could lawfully deposit the amount in question on the next working day of the bank by virtue of the provisions of section 8 of West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956. The petitioner duly deposited the sale price on the next working day. He is, therefore, not liable for the default and his suit cannot be deemed to have been dismissed. In this view of the matter the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 29-8-1984 passed by the learned Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Consequently, the judgments and decrees passed by the learned A.C./Collector, Samundri and the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad shall hold the field. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
H.B.T./M-1558/L