RAJA MUHAMMAD SABIR, J.--- I intend to dispose of C.R. Nos. 935, 936 and 937 of 2001 as all of them have been instituted by the pre-emptor/petitioner against Talib Hussain, Khalid Hussain and Asif Hussain real brothers vendees of 6 kanals, 1 marla of land each for Rs.1,60,000/- each through mutations Nos. 616, 617 and 618, dated 11.5.1999.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Muhammad Javed instituted three suits for possession through pre-emption against afore-mentioned three defendants on 23.8.1999 contending that petitioner is co-sharer in the khata, therefore, has superior right of pre-emption. He was directed oh 18.9.1999 to deposit zar-e-soim amounting to Rs.53,334/- till 7.10.1999 in each of the suit. Petitioner did not comply the order of the Court and submitted an application for extension of time for deposit of zar-e-soim on 7.10.1999 contending that his money is lying in the Post Office, he tried to draw it but was told that two days notice is necessary. His mother was seriously sick, he remained busy in her treatment and could not inform the Post Office authorities in time that he intends to withdraw the money. He requested for extension of one week's time for deposit of zar-e-soim respondents contested the application and alleged that neither the other of the petitioner was sick nor he has account in the Post ffice. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties learned Trial Court dismissed his application for extension of time on 23.10.1999. He assailed the order in appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Tdba Tek Singh maintained the order of the Trial Court through impugned judgment dated 9.1.2001, hence the present revisions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that mother of petitioner was seriously sick, therefore, he could not draw the amount from the Post Office for deposit of zar-e-soim in compliance to the order of the Trial Court dated 18.9.1999. He requested one week's time to comply the aforesaid order but the Trial Court erroneously dismissed his application. Similarly, the Appellate Court misconstrued the law in maintaining the aforesaid order.
4. Heard. Record perused. Admittedly the suit was filed on 23.8.1999. Proviso to Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act provides that the Court shall require the plaintiff to deposit in Court 1/3rd of the sale price of the property in cash within such period as the Court may fix provided that such period shall not extend beyond 30 days of the filing of the suit.
On 18.9.1999 direction was given for deposit of zar-e-soim by 7th of October, 1999. This period already exceeds 30 days as the suit was instituted on 23.8.1999 and the petitioner under the law was required to deposit zar-e-soim within 30 days i.e. Till 23.9.1999. Trial Court instead of fixing the date within that period directed the petitioner to deposit zar-e-soim by 7th of October, 1999 whereby petitioner got the advantage of two more weeks for this purpose. Even the Trial Court was not competent to extend the period beyond 23.9.1999 for deposit of zar-e-soim. Extra time was not availed by the petitioner who applied for further extension on the ground that the amount was not available and his mother was sick No certificate about the ailment of his mother was attached with the petition seeking extension nor it was produced before the Appellate Court or attached with this petition. The excuse of money having not been provided by the Post Office is hardly a ground to extend the period specified by the Statute itself. No Court is competent to extend statutory period of 30 days in any circumstance. This issue came under consideration before this Court in the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Jamil-ur-Rehman and 6 others (1995 MLD Lah. 1011) wherein it was laid down that the time for deposit of 1/3rd of the pre-emption money is fixed by the Statute itself and cannot be extended by the Court. In Awal Noor v. District Judge Karak and 8 others (1992 SCMR 746). Supreme Court held that extension of time beyond 30 days for deposit of zar-e-soim is barred and the period cannot be extended on asking of the plaintiff nor it can be done suo motu by the Court itself.
5. Froth the perusal of Section 24 of the Punjab Pre- emption Act and the above-cited judgments it is crystal clear that the petition for extension of time after thirty days of institution of suit was not maintainable. Learned Trial Judge has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner. The impugned order maintaining the aforesaid judgment is based on proper assumption of law. All the three petitions have no merit and are dismissed in limine.