This appeal is directed against an order of the District Judge, Lahore whereby he dismissed an application filed by the appellants under section 6 of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956 read with rule 10 of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Rules, 1962.
2. The appellants. Owned a house which was requisitioned by the Home Secretary to the Government of West Pakistan, under section 3 of the said Act. Compensation for the house was assessed by the Home Secretary at the rate of Rs. 261 per month. The appellants, however, demanded compensation at the rate of Rs. 500 per month. As their demand was not acceded to, they made the aforesaid application for arbitration to the District Judge.
2. The application was resisted by the Home Secretary, whereupon the following issue was framed by the learned District Judge : What compensation should be paid by the respondent to the petitioner for the use and occupation of the building in dispute which has been requisitioned by the respondent?
3. The parties led evidence and when the application came up for arguments the respondent raised an objection that the application was time barred. This objection found favour with the learned District Judge, therefore, without deciding the issue formulated by him, he dismissed the application. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge, the applicants have come up in appeal to this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that after the refusal of the appellants to accept the compensation determined by the Home Secretary it was incumbent upon the respondent to proceed in accordance with the provisions of rule 9 of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Rules, 1962, which reads as follows : "9. Requisitioning Authority's statement.-(1) Within seven days of refusal of the offer of compensation, the Requisitioning Authority, shall deliver to the person or persons interested in the property, a duly authenticated statement in writing setting forth
(a) particulars of the property requisitioned in such details as the case may require ;
(b) the amount of compensation assessed by the Requisitioning Authority ;
(c) the grounds on which such amount was determined ; and
(d) the date on which the period of limitation prescribed in the next succeeding rule expires.
(2) A written acknowledgment shall be taken of the delivery of such statement."
Learned counsel for the appellants maintained that since the period of limitation had to run from the date of the delivery of statement under rule 9 but the same was not supplied to them the plea of limitation was not available to the respondent.
5. In, reply, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that while appearing as his own witness Azmat Ullah appellant did not say that the statement in question was not given to him and as an intimation relating to the assessm ent of the compensation at the rate of Rs. 261 per month had been conveyed to the appellants more than 90 days before the filing of the application for arbitration the learned District Judge was justified in dismissing the application for being time- barred.
6. A perusal of sub-rule (3) of rule 8 would show that the intimation regarding the assessment of compensation referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent was by way of an offer to the appellants. As they had not accepted this offer, the next step required to be taken by the respondent was to give them statement under rule 9 and obtain acknowledgment of its delivery. It was from the date of the receipt of that statement by them that the period of limitation prescribed by rule 10 had to start running. Since the intimation given to the appellants under sub-rule (3) of rule 8 cannot be treated as the statement to be furnished under rule 9, this intimation has no bearing on the question of limitation.
7. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that, while in the witness- box, Azmat Ullah appellant did not deny the receipt of the statement under rule 9 it will be seen that the respondent did not plead limitation till after the conclusion of the parties' evidence and as such he could not be expected to say, during the course of his deposition, that the statement in question had not been given. The appellant did deny the receipt of the statement when the plea of limitation was raised at the stage of arguments. This is evident from the order assailed herein. No adverse inference can,` therefore, be drawn against the appellants on the ground that in the testimony of one of them the receipt of statement under rule 9 has not been denied.
8. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the order of the learned District Judge dismissing the application for arbitration on the ground of limitation is not sustainable. 1, therefore, accept the appeal with costs, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the learned District Judge, Lahore, with the direction that, with a view to finding out if the statement under rule 9 was delivered to the appellants, he shall record statements of the parties or their duly authorised agents or counsel and then, after framing additional issues, if necessary, proceed further with the, case and decide it afresh. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.