' A suit for possession, on plea of exercise of right of presumption, in respect of land fully described in the heading of the plaint was filed on 29-7-1987 by the present petitioner. Senior Civil Judge Mansehra entrusted the same for adjudication to Civil Judge Masehra.
2. After verification of the plaint and accompanied documents the same was found in proper form.
Therefore, on the same date, the learned Civil Judge summoned the defendant for 30-9-1987 and directed the plaintiff/petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs,30,000 i,e,, 1/3rd of the sale price as given in the plaint. The plaintiff was further directed to furnish Bank Guarantee for the remaining 2/3rd of the sale price, which comes to Rs,60,000 (Sixty thousand). The Court, allowed 30 days time to the plaintiff for compliance of the order.
3. On 30-9-1987 the suit was dismissed for non-compliance of order, dated 29-7-1987, as required under section 24 of N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act (Act X of 1987).
4. Aggrieved from the order, appeal was filed in the Court of District Judge Mansehra, which was also dismissed, as it was found that no tengable explanation, for non-compliance of order of Trial Court was furnishes, therefore, it was held that suit was rightly dismissed under section 24(2) of the Act.
5. Against appellate order delivered on 12-3-1988, a revision was filed before this Court, and alter hearing the parties, the case was remanded to the Trial Court on 16-10-1988 with the following direction: "This revision petition is accordingly accepted, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the case is remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh on the point of the fulfilment of the requirement of section 24 of the Pre-emption Act with opportunity of hearing to the parties and if need be to obtain evidence to substantiate their view points. Parties are left to bear their own costs."
6. The Trial Court, on receipt of file on remand, summoned the parties and allowed them to produce evidence, to settle the issue if the plaintiff was vigilent in depositing Rs,30,000, 1/3rd of sale price, and also Bank guarantee within period specified by the Trial Court? Plaintiff produced, Manzoor Ahmed, Manager United Bank Ltd. Mansehra as P.W.1 and himself appeared as P.W.2, to prove that he has deposited 1/3rd of sale price within 30 days of the order, and that due to Summer vacation of Courts, Bank guarantee for remaining 2/3rd could not be filed before expiry of time limit given to him.
7. Detail facts are given in judgment of Trial Court, according to which, the record of the case show that Rs,'_10,000 were deposited in cash on 22-8-1987. Bar* Guarantee was obtained on 31-8-1987, and was produced in Court on 15-9-1987, which manifestly appears to be beyond the time limit as fixed by the Trial Court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued, that due to Summer vacation, the Civil Courts remained closed uptil 31-8-1987, and soon thereafter he got the Bank Guarantee which is, dated 31- 8-1987 as such, the same should be considered as within time. He next argued that under section 9 of West Pakistan General Clauses' Act, the expiry date falling on a holiday, he was to furnish Bank Guarantee on first day of re-opening of the Courts, his other limb of argument is that Act X of 1992 N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption (Amendment) Act, has done away with the furnishing of Bank Guarantee and, statutory requirement is to deposit 1/3rd of sale price only, and that the amendment be given retrospective effect and would be applicable to his case, as the lis between the parties is not yet finally decided.
9. On the other hand, counsel appearing for respondent submitted that Act X of 1992, amending/substituting section 24 of Act X of 1987, cannot be given retrospective effect, that the petitioner's suit was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court and also by the Appellate Court, for non- compliance of order, dated 29-7-1987; that Bank Guarantee was obtained on 31-8-1987, after the expiry of period prescribed, and furthermore, that the same was produced to the Court on 15-9- 1987, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. Arguments heard and record has been perused. Order of learned Civil Judge, dated 29-7-1987 is unambiguous, it specifically directed the petitioner to deposit 1/3rd of sale price in cash and 2/3rd in form of Bank Guarantee within 30 days. No doubt that cash amount was deposited on 22-8-1987, but Bank Guarantee was issued to him on 31-8-1987. According to the record the same was filed before the Trial Judge on 15-9-1987. The excuse of Surnmer vacation is not at all extendable to the petitioner, firstly, because if he could deposit cash amount on 22-8-1987 he could have equally furnished Bank Guarantee also in the month of August, because there was some staff to receive cash amount of Rs,30,000, then the same staff would have received Bank Guarantee, if produced.
Secondly, the provision of section 9 of West Pakistan General Clauses Act, are also not applicable to the case of the petitioner, on facts, because the Bank Guarantee was furnished to the Court on 15-9-1987.
11. The conduct of petitioner, in applying to the bank for issuance of guarantee is also relevant. He applied to the bank on 27-8-1987, the photo copy of his application is Exhibited as Exh.P.W.1/1, the guarantee was issued on 31-8-1987 the original of which is Exh.P.W.1/7. What stopped the petitioner in making application to the bank for issuance of guarantee? Why he waited till 27-8-1987, i,e,, just one day short of prescribed period of 30 days as allowed to him by the Trial Court. This reflects on the attitude of the petitioner, who according to his own statement is a Headmaster. He acted in very slack manner and was not efficiently pursuing his own cause.
12. The argument as to giving of retrospective effect to Act X of 1992, is misconceived. Act X of 1992 substituting section 24 of Act X of 1987, was published in Gazette of N.-W.F.P. On 16-12-1992, the Bill was passed by Provincial Assembly on 13-12-1992, and assented to by the Governor of the Province of 14-12-1992; section I of Act X of 1992 is as under:
(1) Short title and commencement.---(1) This Act may be called the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption (Amendment) Act, 1992.
(2) It shall come into force at once and shall be deemed to have taken effect on the 31st December, 1991." (Underlined for emphasis)
13. Mere reading of section 1 of amending Act indicates intention of the Legislature whereby it has specifically given the date from which the Act (Amendment) shall come into force and the date from which it be deemed to have taken effect. The principle of general-law that the Procedural Laws are to be given retrospective effect will not apply to a case where the intendment of the Legislature is given in express words. In this case as the definite date has been given in the amending Act, therefore, it will cover cases which would fall within the prescribed time.
14. In this view of the factual and legal position, the revision being devoid of force, is dismissed, but under circumstances with no order as ro costs.