Malik DILAWAR KHAN Versus BAKHTIAR AHMED

ORDER

CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.--- The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for pre-emption before the learned trial Court on 31-7-2010 and on the same day, the learned trial Court directed the petitioner/plaintiff to deposit the Zar-e-Soam within a period of 30 days. The said order in verbatim is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:--

On the next date of hearing, the learned trial Court after observing that the petitioner/plaintiff did not deposit the amount of Zar-e-Soam in compliance with order dated 31-7-2010, dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff vide order dated 15-9-2010. The petitioner/plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned lower appellate Court while assailing the order dated 15-9-2010 passed by the learned trial Court which has also been dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 13-11-2010, hence, the instant civil revision has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has argued that the impugned order and judgment passed by both the courts below are illegal having been passed against the spirit of law; that the interim order sheet of learned trial court reflects that at the time of hearing (on 31-7-2010), the learned trial court only directed the petitioner to submit index of net profit before the court to determine Zar-e-Soam, but there was no order for deposit of Zar-e-Soam; that in the said order, the words "Zar-e-Soam" were inserted by the learned trial court subsequently, which was not in the knowledge of the petitioner and the learned trial court has non-suited the petitioner/plaintiff due to his own act.

3. Arguments heard and record perused.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court did not direct the petitioner/plaintiff to deposit Zar-e-Soam within a period of 30 days vide order dated 31-7-2010 and the learned trial court subsequently inserted the words "Zar-e-Soam" in the said order, is misconceived as presumption of truth is always attached to the judicial proceedings and strong and unimpeachable evidence is required to rebut such presumption. Reliance in this respect can safely be placed on the case law reported as "Muhammad Ramzan v. Lahore Development Authrity, Lahore" (2002 SCMR 1336) and "Fayyaz Hussain v. Akbar Hussain and others (2004 SCMR 964). For the sake of arguments, if it is presumed that the said insertion was made by the learned Judicial Officer, then the petitioner/plaintiff could have initiated proceedings against the said Judicial Officer. The order dated 31-7-2010 is very much clear, wherein, the petitioner/plaintiff was directed to deposit Zar-e-Soam within a period of 30 days. The said proceedings have already attained the presumption of correctness and therefore mere oral assertion of learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable to deviate therefrom.

5. Even otherwise, under section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, the pre-emptor is bound to deposit Zar-e-Soam within a maximum period of 30 days. The said provision of law is mandatory in nature. The ignorance of law cannot declare to be an excuse for the failure to act thereupon and save from its consequences. When the suit of pre-emption was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, he was required to deposit the Zar-e-Soam within a maximum period of 30 days. The petitioner/plaintiff failed to deposit the said amount due to his own act and no the blame of learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff upon the learned Presiding Officer of the learned trial court is without any substance. As a natural consequence for having failed to deposit Zar-e-Soam of the pre-empted amount as required by the mandatory provision of law, the suit of the petitioner has rightly been dismissed and no scope was also left with the lower appellate court to warrant interference, who has also eminently dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

6. Sequel of the above discussion is that the order and judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are quite in accordance with law warranting no interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction as learned counsel has failed to put forth any good reason or ground regarding failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit Zar-e-Soam within the stipulated period rather he has chosen to level the allegation against the Presiding Officer of the learned trial curt without any substance or strong footing. This revision petition having no force is dismissed in limine.

AG/D-5/L Revision dismissed.