Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 100

Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 3, 120

Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)

Section: 30

  (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 100 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3-Plea of limitation abandoned in first- appeal-No bar against raising such plea in second appeal. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)- Art. 120 read with Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 30--. Suit for possession by pre-emption -Limitation-Resale made by original vendee during period of limitation of one year of first sale--Article 120, Limitation Act, 1908 held, applicable to case. Karam Dad and another v. Ali Muhammad and others 31 P R 1913 gel. Sirl Thakar Ji Maharaj and another v. Sujjan Singh and another ,4 I R 1939 All. 158 ref. Date of hearing : 21st February,. 1979.                                                                                                   JUDGMENT The only point involved in this second appeal from the concurrent decisions of two Courts below in a suit for possession by pre-emption is one of limitation. 2. Mst. Sharifan Bibi sold her share in the land in a joint khatas spread over several khasra numbers in favour of Muhammad Hanif respondent (2) by means of mutation attested on 25th of August 1969 (P-5). Barkat, respondent (i) filed suit on 4th of June 1970 to pre-empt the sale impleading Muhammad Hanif vendee as the sole respondent. Abdul Majid appellant (1) appeared before learned Civil Judge on 15th of September 1970 to represent informally that Muhammad Hanif the original vendee had already transferred the land in favour of the appellants in recognition of their superior rights of pre-emption. On 14th of January 1971 Barkat respondent (1) applied for amendment of plaint so as to implead the appellants as defendants - in the suit. The application was accepted same day and amended plaint was filed on 21st of January 1971. The appellants resisted the suit denying the pre emption right of Barkat respondent (1) and also pleaded limitation. The respondent was eventually adjudged to have superior…