Civil Revisions Nos. 220, 263 and 264 of 1993 involve more or less the same questions of law and facts for resolution at this end. These revision petitions are accordingly proposed to be disposed of by a joint order. In Civil Revision No. 220 of 1993 a sale of agricultural land was effected by a mutation attested on 5-i1-1991. Pre-emptor claimed to have gained knowledge of the sale on 9-12- 1991 that he made Talbi Muwathibat there and then the same day followed by Talbi Ishhad on 11-12- 1991 and instituted a suit for pre-emption on 16-3-1992. His suit was dismissed as having been found time-barred as filed beyond 120 days of the date of attestation of the sale mutation.
2. In Civil Revisions Nos. 263 and 264 of 1993 the sales of agricultural land were effected by attestation of the mutations on 10-8-1991 which were pre-empted by institution of suits on -30-5- 1992. Vendee made applications for dismissal of the suits on ground of limitation but his applications were turned down obliging him to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court in the subject matter.
3. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at great length. Now in section 31 the N.W.F.P. Pre- emption Act, 1987 had provided a period of one year for institution of a suit to enforce a right of pre-emption from the date of registration of the sale-deed or the attestation of the mutation or taking over the physical possession of the property under the sale or in the absence thereof from the date of knowledge of sale by the pre-emptor. Act No. X of 1992 published in the Gazette of N.- W.F.P. On 16th December, 1992 was given its commencement to come into force at once and also to be deemed to have taken effect on the 31st December, 1991. This amending Act has also, amongst others, made amendment in section 31 substituting a period of one year for 120 days in the said Act.
4. _ The following questions beg for determination:-- "If Act No. X of 1992 having been given retrospective effect from 31-12-1991 shall also have its operative effect to the institution of suits prior to its enactment on 16-12-1992 and further in case of sales effected before 31-12-1991 and suits to enforce right of pre-emption instituted after 31-12-1991 shall also be governed by a period of limitation prescribed by the amending law in 120 days.
Reference was made to section 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act which in case of Talbi Muwathibat contemplates immediate demand by a pre-emptor in the sitting or meeting in which he has come to know of the sale declaring his intention to exercise the right of pre-emption and that Talbi Muwathibat shall be followed by Talbi Ishhad not later than two weeks from the date of notice under section 32 or knowledge whichever may be earlier and that last there shall be made Talbi Khusumat by instituting a pre-emption suit in a Court of competent jurisdiction. Section 32 pertains to the giving of public notice within two weeks of the registration or attestation by the Registrar or the revenue Officer respectively in respect of the registration or attestation, also prescribing mode of service of such notice and charges therefore. Section 32 has been, no doubt, coached in the mandatory language but there has not been prescribed and provided for a penalty in case of non-compliance. It was contended that section 13, 31 and 32 read together would saddle the pre-emptor with responsibility and liability to make requisite Talabs after he comes to know of the sale and that in case of non-compliance of the mandatory provision of section 32 in giving a notice by the Registrar or the Revenue Officer it shall be only from the date of the knowledge of the pre-emptor to make requisite Talabs of Muwathibat and Ishhad and also Khusumat, the institution of the suit and that a period of 120 days shall be counted from the date of knowledge only. The argument does ring interesting but section 31 prescribes a period of limitation for a suit to enforce a right of pre-emption after amending Act X of 1992 in 120 days from the date of registration of sale-deed or attetation of mutation or taking of physical possession one after the other and that only in the absence of the sale transaction having been effected in the above modes the period of limitation shall be counted from the date of gaining knowledge. True, section 32 read with section 13 pertaining to Talabs, pre-emptor has been required to make Talabs on gaining of knowledge of the transaction. But the registration of a sale-deed and the attestation of sale mutation in an assembly and the taking of the physical possession of the property are acknowledged as a notice to public-at-large including the pre-emptor and the legislature has perhaps for that reason provided in unequivocal terms that the period of limitation shall run first from the date of registration of sale deed, second from the date of attestation of mutation and third from the date of taking of physical possession and only in the absence. Thereof the period of limitation shall run from the date of knowledge of the transaction. The learned counsel for the pre-emptor in Civil Revision No. 220/93 argued that his suit was filed within 120 days of the date of his knowledge of the transaction and it should be acknowledged as suit filed within time although the sale herein was effected by mutation attested more than 120 days before the institution of the pre-emption suit.
The argument does not hold the ground and is hereby repelled."
4-A. Act No. X of 1992 has been given effect .To from 31-12-1991 and shall therefore be applicable even from the date of its commencement to the A exercise of the right of pre-emption by instituting suit within 120 days of the sale whether effected before or after 31-12=1991 and all suits filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 120 days shall be deemed time-barred and plaints shall be liable to rejection under Order VII, Rule II, clause (d), C.P.C. As such suits appear to be barred by law from the statement in the plaint.
5. The moot points thus stand resolved in the light of the foregoing discussion. Civil Revision No. 220/93 is hereby dismissed while Civil Revisions Nos. 263 and 264 of 1993 are hereby accepted and the plaints in the pre--emption suits of the said Civil Revisions are hereby rejected under Order VII Rule 11, clause (d), C.P.C. There is, however, made no order as to costs in the cases.