1. Vide Sale Deed executed on 6-4-2002 and registered on 9-4-2002, land measuring 1 Kanal and 16 Marias covered by Khasra No. 178-B min, Khata No. 474, Khewat No. 125 situated at village Kour, Tehsil R.S. Pura, Jammu has been sold by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2. The Mutation based on said Sale Deed has been attested in the year 2010 by the concerned Revenue Officer.

2. The petitioner claimed to have superior right of purchase but notice as was required to be served upon him in terms of Section 18 of the Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993, has not been issued at all.

3. It is only on 5-3-2010, when according to him, respondent No. 2 (Vendee) tried to enter upon the land in question, he gained knowledge about the execution of the Sale Deed and attestation of the Mutation, therefore, has filed suit for enforcement of his right of prior purchase in the year 2010, i.e. after more than eight years from the date of execution of Sale Deed.

4. The respondents have resisted the suit and in the written statement projected various grounds which include limitation, as such, have claimed that the suit is time barred.

5. On the basis of the respective pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed whereas issue No. 4 was treated as preliminary issue, which reads as under:--

Issue No. 4.

“Whether the suit of plaintiff is hopelessly time barred and is liable to be dismissed? OPD”

6. Learned Trial Court vide its order dated 29-11-2010, while referring to the provisions of Section 29 of the Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993 and Article 10 of the Limitation Act has concluded that Article 10 applies, therefore, the suit to enforce right of prior purchase has to be filed within one year from the date of registration of the Sale Deed or from the date Vendee takes possession of the property sold. The Sale Deed has been registered in the year 2002 and possession has also been delivered to the Vendee in the year 2002 itself and to this effect, there is admission on the part of the appellant (plaintiff), finally the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit as barred by limitation.

7. Civil 1st Appeal filed has also been dismissed vide judgment dated 15-3-2012 passed by the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu. Learned appellate Court has referred to the contents of the Sale Deed by stating that in para No. 1 of the said Deed, the possession of subject matter of the sale is recorded to have been delivered to the Vendee. Position of the said para of the Sale Deed has not been pleaded to be wrong.

8. Finally, learned appellate Court has concluded that Article 10 of the Limitation Act applies, otherwise also if Section 29 of the Right of Prior Purchase Act is applied, still suit is time barred.

9. Appellant feeling dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the trial Court as well as the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court, has filed the instant Civil 2nd Appeal.

10. Mr. Rajnesh Oswal entered appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1.

11. At the very outset, it has to be made clear that it is no more res integra that Civil 2nd Appeal has not to be entertained unless the Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law arises for adjudication; as is required under Section 100 of CPC. Formulation of substantial question of law is pre condition for entertaining the Civil 2nd Appeal.

12. In the memo of appeal as many as following six questions have been formulated for being treated as substantial questions of law, which in fact revolve around question No. 1:--

“(i) Whether issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and if so whether the suit could be dismissed by treating issue of limitation as preliminary issue.

(ii) Whether error of law has been committed by the Courts below in deciding the suit as hopelessly time barred.

(iii) Whether provisions of Article 29 of the Limitation Act applies to the present case under the fact and circumstances of this case.

(iv) Whether applicability of Ar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document