' In this Civil Revision the petitioner/plaintiff challenged the correctness of judgment and decree, dated 16.3-1995 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chiniot, whereby the judgment and decree,. Dated 13-6.1994 passed by the Civil Judge, 1st 'Glass, Chiniot rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 1 I C.P.C. Was upheld.
2. The brief resume of the case is that the petitioner/plaintiff filed r suit, for preemption being co- sharer in the joint-Khata of the suit land in the Court of Civil Judge, 1st Class, Chiniot on 18-12-1993 on a sale of land measuring 4/20th share of one Kanal, 4 Marlas situated in Ward No,2, Elhowana, Tehsil Chiniot sold on 17-8-1993 vide registered sale-deed in favour of the responded/defendant.
The defendant contested the suit, filed written statement raising preliminary object* to the extent of non-maintainability of the suit being urban property situated within the limits of Town Committee, Bhowana and also filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code for rejection of plaint on the ground of non-availability of right of preemption. The pre-emptor submitted reply to the application wherein he denied the contents of the application and prayed for its dismissal. The Trial Court after hearing the parties accepted the application and rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C., vide order, dated 13-6-1994, with the reasoning that the pre-emptor/plaintiff had no cause of action as the urban immovable property was exempted from the application of provisions of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991.
3. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, Chiniot who agreeing with the Trial Court dismissed the same. Hence this revision petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly urged that the judgment and decree passed by the Coati below was not warranted in law being in violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court cited in case Muhammad Shabbir Ahmad Khan v. Government of the Punjab, Lahore (PLD 1994 SC 1) where Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court declared section 2(a) of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1991 against the injunction of Islam. He further contended that in view of the findings of the Shariat Appellate Court the property was pre-emptable.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel fOr the respondent vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that at the time of filing of the suit on 16-12-1993 the provision of section 2(a) of Punjab Pre-emption Act. 1991 was intact and judgment of the Supreme Court (Shariat Appellate Court) had made its judgment effective on 31-12-1993. He contended that till the effectiveness of the judgment of the Supreme Court immovable property situated within the urban area or within the Cantonment limit, was not pre-emptible. He added that at the time of sale in dispute and institution of the suit the preemptive right was not available to the petitioner/plaintiff.
6. The fact of the matter is that the sale in dispute took place on 17-8-1993, the suit was instituted on 16-12-1993. On both the aforesaid dates urban immovable property or property situated within the Cantonment limits, was not pre-emptable as section 2(a) of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 attracted to the said property. The judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, in case Muhammad Shabbir Ahmad Khan v. Government of the Punjab, Lahore (PLD 1994 SC 1) declared the provision of section 2(a) of Punjab Preemption Act, 1991 repugnant to the injunction of Islam to the extent, that it excluded all the urban properties and the property situated within the cantonment limits permanently from the application of the Act," and made the judgment effective on 31-12-1993. The Supreme Court had not made effective this judgment retrospectively, meaning thereby the right of pre-emption on urban immovable property and property situated within cantonment limit, was available w,e,f, 31-12-1993. In this connection a reference may be made to the judgment of case Mst. Bashiran Bibi v. Muhammad Kashif Khan and others (PLD 1995 Lah. 200) wherein the Court held that the decision of Supreme Court in case Muhammad Shabbir Ahmad Khan v. Government of the Punjab Lahore (PLD 1994 SC 1) would, however, apply prospectively.
7. It is settled principle of law that the right of pre-emption should be available to the pre-emptor at four different stages:---
(i) At the time of sale of the disputed property;
(ii) at the time of institution of the suit;
(iii) at the time of decree of the suit; and
(iv) ar the time of execution of the decree.
In the present case the right of pre-emption was not available to the pre-emptor on aforesaid two stages i,e, at the time of sale of the property; at' the time of institution of the suit for pre-emption. In this regard I will rely on the case Shaba-ud-Din v. Muhammad Qasim (1996 CLC 480) wherein disputed sate vide registered document had taken place on 4-11-1993 and the suit was filed on 16- 2-1994. The suit filed by the pre-emptor in the said case was rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P,C., by the Trial Court. Appeal was also dismissed and the judgment of rejection t of plaint by the lower Courts was affirmed by this Cow,. No illegality in the impugned judgment was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. The Courts below have not committed any illegality and impugned judgments are held to be unexceptional.
8. For what has been stated above, there is no force in the Revision Petition, which is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.