' SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.---This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court, dated 18-11-1997, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants, herein, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that respondents Nos.2 to 12 executed a sale- deed in favour of the appellants, herein, on 22-6-1992 which was registered on 23-6-1992. A suit on the basis of right of prior purchase was instituted by respondent No,1 on 27-1-1993. An objection was raised that after the amendment in the relevant law whereby the period of limitation in case of enforcement of right of pre-emption has been reduced to four months, the suit is time-barred.
Consequently, a preliminary issue was struck in terms as to whether the suit of the plaintiff- respondent was barred by the limitation. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the same was time-barred. However, on appeal to the District Judge, the findings of the trial Court were reversed and the case was remanded for retrial. The appellants, herein, went up in appeal before the High Court but the same was also dismissed and the remand order of the District Judge was maintained.
3. We have heard the arguments. It has been contended by Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants, that the High Court has committed an error in interpreting the dictum of this Court reported as Fazal Dad v. Mst. Sakina Bibi (1997 M LD 2861) according to which the amendment in the relevant law for instituting a pre-emption suit would be operative retrospectively in cases where the period of four months provided by the amended law or any part of it is yet to be expired, however, where the period of four months at the time of the institution of the suit has already expired, the operation of amendment providing the period of four months for the institution of the suit would not operate retrospectively. The learned counsel has argued that the High Court has incorrectly held that according to the said authority, the unlamented law of limitation would govern the present suit.
4. In reply, Mr. Nazir Ahmad Ghauri, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent, has controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. He has taken us through various paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment of this Court and has argued that the limitation provided by the amended law, i,e,, four months from the date of registration etc. Is not attracted to the present case because the sale-deed was executed prior to the amendment which was brought in the relevant law. The learned counsel has argued that if an amendment in law takes away a vested right, that could not be given retrospective effect, until and unless it is so provided in the relevant statute itself. The learned counsel cited following authorities in support of his contention.
' In case reported as Fazal Dad v. Khadim Hussain (1995 M LD 1299) dealing with the point with regard to the interpretation of section 14 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act, whereby certain amendments in the grounds on which a right of pre-emption could be enforced, were made, it was held that as the amendment in the substantive law takes away the vested rights, the matter would be governed by unlamented section as the same stood on the statute book.
' In case reported as Abdul Aziz v. Muhammad Shafi (1995 CLC 1740), the Azad Jammu and Kashmir. High Court took the view that in pre-emption cases the period for instituting a suit would be governed by the unlamented law and not be the amendment which provides the period of four months for filing a pre-emption suit.
' Similarly, in an unreported case entitled Abdul Ghani v. Tariq Mehmood (Civil Revision No,63 of 1991, decided on 19-1-1994). It was held by the High Court that as the amendment in the period of limitation for filing a suit of pre-emption has not been given retrospective effect, it would not apply to a case in which cause of action had accrued prior to the amendment.
' The aforesaid findings of the High Court were given before the dictum of this Court, referred to above, wherein it has been specifically held that the amendment in the period of limitation being procedural in nature would be applicable to the cases, irrespective of the fact whether the sale- deed was executed before or after the amendment.
5. The above-referred cases decided by the High Court are no more good law after the decision of this Court in case reported as Fazal Dad v. Mst. Sakina Bibi (1997 M LD 2861), whereby the findings of the High Court on the point of amendment previously given pertaining to the substantive right and that of limitation were reversed.
6. We have given due consideration to the matter. As is evident from the dictum of this Court reported as Fazal Dad v. Mst. Sakina Bibi (1997 M LD 2861), the period of limitation of four months provided through amendment would govern the matter whether the sale-deed was executed prior to the amendment or after the same provided the period of four months or any part of it remains to be expired and can be utilized for filing a suit of pre-emption. However, in case where the whole period of four months for the institution of the suit has expired or in case where there remains no breathing space, i,e,, reasonable time for instituting a preemption suit, the unamended law would govern the matter. In the instant case, when the amendment was brought in the relevant law, out of 120 days the plaintiff-respondent had still 119 days for filing the suit. However, the plaintiff- respondent instituted the pre-emption suit much after the expiry of the period of 119 days. As indicated above, the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are distinguishable and two of the said cases were decided by the High Court before the dictum of this Court in the aforesaid case.
' In the light of what has been stated above, we accept the appeal set aside the judgments and decrees of the High Court and the District Judge and hold that the preemption suit filed by the plaintiff respondent was time-barred. The suit is hereby dismissed.