' In a suit filed by the petitioner against respondent No,3 on 5-6-1999 learned respondent No,2 proceeded to direct the petitioner vide order, dated 7-6-1999 passed under section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 to deposit 1/3rd of the price within 30 days. This deposit was made on 5-7-1999. Respondent No,3 filed an application complaining that the amount has not been deposited within 30 days from the date of the filing of the suit and the suit be dismissed. This application was resisted. Learned respondent No,2 dismissed the application on 19-7-2000. A Civil Revision filed by respondent No,3 against the said order came up before respondent No,
1. He proceeded to allow the Civil Revision vide order. Dated 13-1-2001 and directed respondent No,2 to decide the application in the light of his observations.
2. The case was admitted to hearing vide order, dated 1-2-2001 and notice was issued to respondent No,3. The notice has been served on the said respondent by affixation but he is absent despite several calls. He is proceeded against ex parte.
3. The observations, in the light whereof the impugned order directs respondent No,2 to decide the application contained in para.7 of the impugned order which is reproduced hereunder:---
7. It is an admitted fact that suit for possession through pre-emption was filed by the respondent against the petitioner on 5-6-1999 and he was directed by the learned trial Court to deposit 1/3rd amount within 30 days which period expired on 4-7-1999 but the respondent deposited the amount on 5-7-1999 as according to him 4-7-1999 was Sunday and public holiday. The Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 is a Special Statute and section 24 of the same stipulated that 1/3rd amount should be deposited within 30 days in any case and this period cannot be extended as having been fixed by the Statute itself. It has been so held in the esteemed judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent must have been vigilant enough to deposit the amount and he should not have waited for the last day. 1st proviso of section 24 of Punjab Pre- emption Act, 1991 reads as under:--- "Provided that such period shall not extend beyond 30 days of the filing of the suit."
' This fact has not been adverted to by the learned trial Court and the petitioner for dismissal of suit was dismissed on the assumption that the last day for deposit of 1/3rd amount was Sunday. The matter needs reconsideration and appreciation of law laid down by the superior Courts as well as provision of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, the impugned order is, therefore, not valid and proper and in accordance with law and the same is hereby set aside.
4. A bare look on the said observations of the learned respondent No,1 will show that the same are wholly against the law. There is no doubt that learned respondent No,2 could have given time to the petitioner up to 30 days from the filing of the suit. The suit was filed on 5-6-1999 and the 30 days expired on 4-7-1999. I have checked up the relevant calendar and the said date happened to be Sunday. Admittedly the deposit was made on 5-7-1999. Learned respondent No,1 is very right that the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 is a special Statute providing the time for the said date.
However, it is equally true that it is a Provincial Statute and is to be interpreted in accordance with Provincial General Clauses Act, 1956. Section 9 of the said Act clearly lays down that where any act is directed to be done within a prescribed period, then, if the Court or office is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act shall be considered as done in due time if it is done on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open. The petitioners, therefore, have the right to deposit the amount on 5-7-1999 and the law deems it to be a valid deposit. There is no element of extension of the said time of any Court as the law itself so mandates.
5. In view of the above discussion this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of learned respondent No, 1, dated 13-1-2001 is set aside. The result would be that the order, dated 19-7-2000 of learned respondent No,2 shall stand restored and shall take effect accordingly. No orders as to costs.