Sajida vs Muhammad Shehzad etc.

Form No:HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT

MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Case No: Civil Revision No. 1131-D of 2026 Mst. Sajida Vs Muhammad Shehzad and another S.No. of order/ Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties or proceeding Proceeding counsel, where necessary 08.09.2026 Mr. Saghir Ahmad Bhatti, learned Advocate for the revision-petitioner.

Through this civil revision, the decisions and decrees passed by the learned two Courts below have been challenged, whereby, suit for possession through pre-emption has been dismissed upon failure of the revision-petitioner to pay one-third (zar-e- soim) of the sale price.

2.Mr. Saghir Ahmad Bhatti, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner, has submitted that the decisions of the learned Courts below are based on misinterpretation of statutory provisions, therefore, the same are liable to be set-aside. He has further submitted that no order to deposit zar-e-soim was made on 01.12.2025, and realizing this mistake, the learned trial Court directed the revision-petitioner to pay same, however, it was incumbent upon the learned Court to grant thirty (30) days therefrom. He relied upon Liaqat Ali case1. He has contended that the decisions have resulted to non-suit the revision- petitioner, which is not tenable in law.

“Liaqat Ali versus Aitzaz Ahmad and another” (2015 YLR

3.I have heard the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and perused the available documents.

4.Essentially, the argument of the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner requires extracting provisions of section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 (the ‘Act’), which reads as under:-

24.Plaintiff to deposit sale price of the property.- (1) In every suit for pre-emption, the Court shall require the plaintiff to deposit in such Court one-third 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 thirty days of the filing of the suit:

Provided further that if no sale price is mentioned in the sale deed or in the mutation, or the price so mentioned appears to be inflated, the Court shall require deposit of one-third of the probable value of the property.

(2)Where the plaintiff fails to make a deposit under sub-section (1) within the period fixed by the Court, or withdraws the sum so deposited by him, his suit shall be dismissed.

(3)Every sum deposited under sub-section (1) shall be available for the discharge of costs.

(4)The probable value fixed under sub- section (1) shall not affect the final determination of the price payable by the pre-emptor.

5.Sub-section (1) of section 24 of the Act requires the Court to pass an order directing the plaintiff to pay zar-e-soim of the sale price. Proviso thereto clearly envisages that such period cannot extend beyond 30-days of filing of the suit. The same confers discretion upon the learned trial Court to fix the time period for

deposit of zar-e-soim but not unbridled. Reasonable time period has to be granted which by no means can exceed 30-days. Power / discretion of the Court to extend time as envisaged by section 148 of the C.P.C is only available to the Court, where the time has been fixed, by the Court itself or under the Code of Civil Procedure, but where the time for the performance of an act has been fixed by some other statute, the Court in terms of section 148, C.P.C. has no jurisdiction at all to enlarge and extend that time2. Sub-section (2) of section 24 of the Act clearly commands that upon failure of the plaintiff / pre-emptor to deposit the amount within the period fixed by the Court or to withdraw the sum, if deposited, the suit shall be dismissed. The reproduced provisions have clear language, leaving no discretion with the Court but to dismiss the suit forthwith in the circumstances given in sub-section 2 of section 24 ibid. The word “shall” has been used, followed by clear penal consequences of dismissal of the suit.

6.The legislative intent is manifestly clear in section 24(3) of the Act that every sum deposited under sub-section (1) of section 24 of the Act shall be available for the discharge of costs. Moreover, another purpose is to see the willingness and capacity of intending pre- emptor to purchase the property sought to be “Hafiz Muhammad Ramzan versus Muhammad Bakhsh” (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 764)

pre-empted, at the time when the property was being sold, protecting the vendee from frivolous litigation.

7.The provisions of section 24(1) do not operate proprio vigore as the deposit is to be made by a plaintiff under the order of the Court and not otherwise. The word “require” used in section 24 (ibid) makes it profusely clear that the deposit of the amount is to be made under the direction of the Court3. Though a pre-emptor in view of subsection (1) must be ready and have in his pocket the required amount of zar-e-soim at the time of filing of suit and to show his bona fide should ensure that the order for deposit of zar-e-soim is promptly passed so its compliance be effected in terms of the first proviso. However, since the required deposit is subject to the order of the Court, therefore, in cases where Court omits to pass order or the matter is not placed in Court within the time frame as provided in the first proviso then the pre-emptor cannot be blamed and penalized for such non- deposit as the deposit of zar-e-soim is subject to the order of the Court and this Court in such circumstances by upholding the principle that an act of Court shall prejudice no man, can condone such default4.

“Nabi Ahmad and others versus Muhammad Arshad and others” (2008 SCMR 1685) “Malik Tariq Mahmood and others versus Ghulam Ahmed and others” (PLD 2017 Supreme Court

8.In the cases where mistakenly the Court has not passed a direction to deposit zar-e-soim, though it is also the duty of the litigants and their learned Advocates to invite the attention of the Court towards the same as intended pre- emptors are also required to show their willingness and capacity to purchase the property in question. Nevertheless, upon realization of the mistake, the Court has to grant a reasonable period for making the payment because of the settled principle “Actus curiae neminem gravabit” and such granted period has to be reasonable but by no means can extend beyond 30-days. The purpose of the grant of time to deposit is not to generate funds. The object of the Act is to provide the right of pre- emption to the one who is entitled, he exercises the right of pre-emption and he is in the position to purchase the land and not to create hindrance in the genuine sale or use this law as means for blackmailing.

9.The present suit was registered and heard on 01.12.2025, however, no order to deposit was made. The case was then taken up on 17.12.2025. The learned trial Court observed that the sale consideration of Rs.22,65,000/- is admitted in the plaint, and the Court, therefore, directed to deposit the zar-e-soim within 30- days from the date of institution of the suit. It was clearly warned that in case of failure, the suit shall be dismissed. On 02.01.2026, the suit was dismissed on account of failure to deposit

zar-e-soim, under section 24(2) of the Act. The learned trial Court granted about two weeks from the date of order to deposit zar-e-soim, which is a reasonable time period. The case of the petitioner is squarely hit by sub-section (2) of section 24 of the Act and his suit is liable to be dismissed. No mistake has been made by the learned Courts below. This civil revision is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Sultan Tanvir Ahmad) Judge Announced on 15.09.2026 Approved for reporting

Iqbal* Judge