SHAIKH ABDUR RAZZAQ, J. - Instant Civil Revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.7.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozewala whereby he confirmed the judgment and decree dated 17.6.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Ferozewala.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against the defendant/respondent regarding land measuring 1 kanal described fully in the plaint, and alienated vide mutation No. 667, dated 26.4.1995. He alleged that land was actually sold for Rs.25,000/- but no ostensible sale price of Rs.50,000/- was mentioned to defeat his said right. He claimed his superior right of pre-emption on the ground of contiguity' of his land as well as common source of irrigation. He requested the defendant/respondent to accept his superior right of pre-emption but the later refused.
3. The plaintiff/petitioner instituted suit on 23.7.1995. The Trial Court directed the plaintiff/petitioner to deposit Zar-e-Soem within 30 days thereof and adjourned the suit to 4.9.1995. The plaintiff/petitioner did not deposit the said amount till 4.9.1995 and the matter was adjourned to 19.9.1995 to consider the effect of non-deposit of Zar-e-Soem. However, on 6.12.1995, the defendant/respondent made a statement in the Court that he had received Rs.50,000/- and has no objection if the suit is decreed against him. As the statements were recorded by a Duty Judge, so he adjourned the matter to 20. 12.1995 for further proceedings. Before the matter could be decided on the basis of statement of defendant/respondent dated 6.12.1995 the defendant/respondent moved an application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC read with Section 151, CPC on 23.1.1996 alleging that he never appeared in the Court on 6.12.1995 and made any such statement. He alleged that Zar-e-Soem had not been deposited as required by Section 24 of the Pre-emption Act, so the suit be dismissed. This application was resisted by the plaintiff/petitioner and the Trial Court framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff has sold of his owner land as such is not entitled to decree for pre- emption? OPA
(2) Whether Zar-e-Soem has not been deposited within 30 days as such suit is liable to be dismissed? OPA
(3) Whether defendant has received Rs.50,000/- before Court, if so, whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree of pre-emption in light of statement recorded on 6.12.1995? OPR
(4) Relief.
4. In support of his stand defendant/respondent examined AW-1 Amanat Ali Patwari, AW-2 Muhammad Ramzan and appeared himself as AW-3. In rebuttal plaintiff/petitioner examined RW-1 Malik Tanvir Afzal Khan, Advocate, RW-2 Khalid Mehmood Reader, RW-3 Abdul Saboor Khan, Advocate, RW-4 Muhammad Yaqoob and recorded his on statement as RW-5.
5. After going through the evidence produced by the parties the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 17.6.1997. He felt aggrieved and tiled an appeal which was also dismissed on 4.7.1998. Hence the instant Civil Revision.
6. Arguments have been heard and record perused with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner is that both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence brought on record, that he failed to deposit Zar-e-Soem within 30 days as ordered on 23.7.1995 because the defendant/respondent had entered into a compromise and made such statement on 6.12.1996, that this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration while answering issue No. 2, that as defendant/respondent had received Rs.50,000/- and gave statement dated 6. 12.1995 so irrespective of the fact that Zar-e-Soem had not been deposited, the suit could not be dismissed, that it is evident from the statement of AW-1 that he still owns land in the estate, so he could not be non-suited on that account, that all these facts-have not been taken into consideration by the Courts below.
8. Conversely impugned judgments and decrees have been supported by the learned counsel for the defendant/respondent. His contention is that according to Section 24 of the Pre-emption Act the plaintiff/petitioner was bound to deposit Zar-e-Soem within 30 days from the date of order, that admittedly Zar-e-Soem was not deposited within 30 days as such the suit on this short ground should have been dismissed by the Trial Court on 4.9.1995. He further contends that even time for deposit ot Zar-e-Soem could not be extended and in support of his contention relied upon Awal Noor Vs. District Judge, Karak & 8 others (1992 SCM R 746) and Haji Abdul Qadir Vs. Zafar Shaheen (NLR 1997 Civil 569).
9. So far as the question of receipt of Rs.50,000/- by the defendant/respondent is concerned, he submitted that both the Courts below have returned their findings on the said issues and have held that defendant/respondent had received the said amount, but even then has not held him entitled to the decree of pre-emption. He canvassed that as per statement Of AW-1 Amanat Ali, Patwari, it is evident that prior to statement dated 6.12.1995 the plaintiff/petitioner had already alienated the land vide mutation No. 1119, dated 22.11.1995, that as the plaintiff/petitioner was no more owner in the Khata on the date when his statement dated 6.12.1995 was recorded so. The suit could not be decreed even on the basis of said statement. He argued that plaintiff/petitioner had to prove his superior right of pre-emption at the time of sale, at the time of filing suit and at the time of decree, that even if it is assumed without conceding that compromise was arrived at between the parties on the basis of statement dated 6.12.19915 even the suit could not be decreed as the plaintiff/petitioner ceased to be owner in the estate prior to 6.12.1995. He thus submitted that both the Courts below have returned their findings in accordance with law which do not call for any interference by invoking the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
10. The plaintiff/petitioner filed the instant suit whereby he pre-empted the sale in favour of the defendant/respondent which was effected through mutation No. 667, dated 26,4.1995. Admittedly the suit was filed on 23.7.1995 and the plaintiff was directed to deposit Zar-e-Soem within 30 days.
It is fact that Zar-e-Soem was not deposited within 30 days as is evident from order-sheet dated 4.9.1995. It is also fact that prior to 6.12.1995 when the alleged statement of defendant/respondent was recorded neither Zar-e-Soem had been deposited nor the time had been got extended.
Learned counsel for the defendant has relied upon 1992 SCM R 746 which lays down that time for deposit of Zar-e-Soem cannot be extended and the same authority has further been relied in NLR 1997 Civil 569 supra. Now even if it is assumed that a compromise had been executed between the plaintiff/petitioner and defendant/respondent the suit could not be decreed for non-deposit of Zar-e- Soem, as required by Section 24 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991.
11. From the facts stated above it is clear that impugned judgments and decrees have been passed in accordance with law. The revision petition is devoid of any for:e and is dismissed.