MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ, J.- Vide a registered sale-deed dated 2-1-1988 Mst. Fatima Bibi alienated suit land to Nasar Din/petitioner herein. Feeling aggrieved, Abdul Majid/respondent pre-empted the above sale on 21-7-1988. However, he withdrew the suit with a permission to file afresh one.
Resultantly, he brought a suit for possession through pre-emption again on 17.10.1988. This suit was contested. Number of legal objections were taken. It was pleaded that suit was barred by time and secondly, that the pre-emptor had not satisfied the requirements of Talabs. On the evidence produced by the parties, the to Courts' below concluded tl at the suit was within time and that the pre-emptor had proved the requirements of Talabs. On these conclusions, the learned to Courts below allowed the claim of respondent/pre-emptor. This is how, this revision petition has come to this Court.
2. The learned counsel for petitioner relied upon Noor Begum v. Muhammad Boota (PLD 1995 Lah.
344) to contend that the defendant's suit was filed on 21.7.1988; that this was clearly barred by time under Section 30 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991; that fresh suit had been filed without first seeking permission from the Court. The learned counsel for respondent, on the contrary, supported impugned decision. He strenuously contended that the respondent had filed second suit after obtaining necessary permission from the original Court. On the point of limitation, it was canvassed that the first suit was even within time. He, however, suggested that the view taken in Noor Begum's case, supra, was not correct and he will challenge the same before the Supreme Court. He has no words to say that the instant suit was governed by rule enunciated in Noor Begum's case, supra.
3. The facts leading to this petition are not in contest. It is common ground between the parties that sale was made through registered instrument dated 2-1-1988. On these facts, it is crystal clear that suit was barred by time under Section 30 Clause A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. This suit had been manifestly filed after the expiry of four months' time from the date of registration of the sale- deed which was 2-1-1988. This being the state of affairs, I have to difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the findings of to Courts below on issue No. 1/ of limitation is clearly illegal and suffer from error apparent on the face of record. The rule enunciated in Noor Begum's case, supra, completely covers this case. The findings of to Courts below on issue No.1 (of limitation) cannot be sustained.
4. For reasons stated above this revision petition succeeds; that the decisions of to Courts below are set aside and the suit filed by respondent is dismissed as barred by time. There shall be no order as to costs.