KARIM BAKHSH Versus RAHIM BAKHSH

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑ ‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the vendee's side in a pre‑emption matter against the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeal by the High Court.

2. The only point pressed by the learned counsel is that the suit of the respondents' side was time‑barred. Therefore, it should have been dismissed accordingly.

3. The respondents' suit was duly filed within time before the Civil Court. As one of the grounds for pre‑emption was tenancy, the suit was transferred to the revenue Court where it remained pending for some time. The revenue Court ultimately found that it was not such a case which could be tried by it; the same was again sent by it (revenue Court) to the Civil Court which ultimately decided it. According to the learned counsel, the time spent before wrong Court after the transfer by the Civil Court, could not be excluded from the period of limitation.

4. The argument is without force. The suit had been filed before the expiry of the period of limitation in the Civil Court which ultimately decided it. If for a temporary period a defect was discovered regarding filing of the suit before the Civil Court, the same got cured by the return of the suit to the Civil Court subsequently. It cannot be said that the presentation of the plaint in the Civil Court before the expiry of period of limitation was not proper, notwithstanding any technical defect. Moreover, the provisions contained in section 14 of the Limitation Act as also section 21, C.P.C. could be pressed in service in support of the impugned judgment. The judgment of this Court in' Muhammad Ismail v. Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore 1985 S C M R 112 also goes against the petitioner. Looked at from whatever angle, there is no force in this petition. Therefore, leave to appeal is refused.

5. M.B.A.IK‑59/S Petition dismissed.