' The facts which have given rise to the present revision petition are that the present petitioner/plaintiff before the trial Court Muhammad Khan filed a suit for possession thr"ugh pre- emption of the property as detailed in para. 1 of the plaint alleging that it had been sold by Mst.
Nasreen Begum for fictitious consideration of Rs,2,50,000 vide Mutation No,1347 attested on 21-9- 1994 and the respondents/defendants before the trial Court kept the sale secret from the petitioner and also did not take possession of the suit property. It is further alleged that when the petitioner came to know of the sale of this property he in accordance, with law immediately made 'Talb-i- Muwathibat followed by 'Talb-e-Ishhed and then filed the above cited suit for possession through preemption. The petitioner claimed his superior right of pre-emption on the basis of being co- sharer in the Khata out of which the property was sold. It was further submitted that during the process of the suit the defendants/ respondents came up with an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. With the prayer that the suit filed by the present petitioner was barred by time, hence his plaint be rejected. The trial Court allowed this application and rejected the plaint of the plaintiff and dismissed the above said suit on 20-7-1995. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved challenged this judgment and decree before the Court of learned Additional District Judge who dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner and upheld the findings of the trial Court. The petitioner has filed, the present revision petition.
2. The respondents in this revision petition although they stand served but none is present on their behalf, hence the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner are being heard ex parte.
3. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no doubt the period of limitation provided for filing of suit for possession through pre-emption is four months from the date of registration of the sale-deed in case of a registered deed and in case of sale by attestation of mutation from the date of attestation of mutation but has also submitted that the Legislature by providing section 31 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 had also made it compulsory for the Officer registering the sale-deed or attesting the mutation of a sale-deed to issue a notice within a period of two weeks to all those persons entitled to pre-empt which condition was not fulfilled and reliance has been placed upon Mian Asif Islam v. Mian Muhammad Asif and others (PLD 2001 SC 499) wherein it was held that in the absence of proof of compliance of provisions of section 31 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, the only crucial date for determination of period of limitation is the date of knowledge of the sale of the plaintiff. The date of knowledge of sale of the plaintiff is question of evidence which cannot be determined and disposed of in a: summary manner.
4. In this eventuality it is clear that the order of the trial Court as well as that of the learned Additional District Judge were not in accordance with law and suffer from an illegality and material irregularity, therefore, I am left with no option except to allow this revision petition and to set aside the order of both the Courts below and as such the present revision petition is allowed and judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court , for framing issues including the question of limitation of filing of the suit and also to determine the date of knowledge as alleged by the petitioner and then record evidence of both the parties and then proceed in accordance with law and dispose of the civil suit. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Court on 30-4-2002.