' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- By this judgment we intend to dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.2016-L and 2017-L of 2001 as in both the petitions common questions of facts and law are involved arising out of the impugned judgment dated 17th April, 2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore.
Civil Petition No,2017-L of 2001
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that respondent No,1 pre-empted sale dated 21-12-1962 by filing suit before Tehsildar on 1-10-1963 which was transferred on the file of Civil Judge. The suit was decreed on 10th December, 1985. In appeal learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot vide judgment dated 4-11-1986 concluded that the suit is within time but dismissed it because in respect of the earlier sale-deed dated 31-5-1962 the suit has been found barred by time. Revision filed before the Lahore High Court by the respondent was allowed on 17th April, 2001.
Civil Petition No,2016-L of 2001
3. The respondent pre-empted sale dated 31-5-1962 by filing a suit before Tehsildar on 30-5-1963 which came up on the file of Civil Judge, Narowal on 5-6-1963. The suit was decreed on 10th December, 1985. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot accepted the appeal holding that the suit is barred by time. Respondent/plaintiff filed civil revision, which has been accepted vide impugned judgment dated 17th April, 2001. It may be noted that learned High Court decided both theCivil Revisions i.e, 376-D and 377-D of 1937 by means of common judgment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on 30th May, 1963 the learned District Judge has not made arrangement for acceptance of plaint by the Tehsildar in accordance with the provisions of Lahore High Court Rules and Orders Vol.I, Chapter 1-B, Rule 7(c) but the learned High Court has erred in law in relying upon the office order which was issued on 10th February, 1969 vide No,187/C.II.26. Initially we were of the opinion that probably there is some other notification of the year 1963, therefore, the learned District Judge, Sialkot was asked to copy of the notification if issued in the year 1963. In compliance of our order the District Judge has forwarded copy of Notification dated 10-2-1969, a perusal whereof indicates that no arrangement was made by District Judge, Sialkot with Tehsildar Narowal and Shakargarh for receiving the plaints. Thus, according to the learned counsel the suit subject-matter of C.P.L.A. No,2016-L of 2001 was barred by time and if his this contention is accepted other suit which is the subject-matter of C.P.L.A. No,2017-L of 2001 would also become barred by time because Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint.
5. In response to the notice learned counsel for the caveator appeared and stated that there was no necessity for issuing an order by the District Judge, Sialkot making arrangement with the Tehsildar to entertain the plaint in absence of Civil Judge as under rule 7(c) (ibid) Tehsildar himself was empowered to receive the plaint. To Substantiate his plea he placed reliance on the case of Muhammad Yar through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad 2003 SCM R 1772.
6. From the respective arguments of parties counsel and having gone through the relevant High Court Rules and office order dated 10th February, 1969 as well as the impugned judgment question emerges for examination "Whether on 30-5-1963 the Tehsildar was empowered to receive the plaint, in absence of Civil Judge under rule 7(c) Chapter I, Volume 1-B, of the High Court Rules and Orders by the District Judge, Sialkot. Therefore, leave to appeal in both the cases is granted inter alia to examine this contention.
7. Pending decision of the appeals arising out of these petitions operation of impugned judgment dated 17th April, 2001 is stayed.