2009 PLP 1287 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus GHULAM SAFDAR — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1287 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus GHULAM SAFDAR — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1287 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 1287 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1287 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus GHULAM SAFDAR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Arif Gondal for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.6, 13 & 24
Suit for pre-emption--Deposit of zar-e-soem
Plaintiff, in compliance of direction of the Trial Court, deposited zar-e-soem within specified period
Subsequently plaintiff himself filed application that as the Trial Court had passed incorrect order in respect of amount of Zar-e-Soem, whereby less amount was ordered to be deposited, he sought permission to deposit balance amount
Defendant having not objected, balance amount was deposited by the plaintiff
Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to deposit entire Zar-e-Soem within specified period
Appellate Court however, decreed the suit
Zar-e-Soem as directed by the Trial Court was deposited by the plaintiff within prescribed time
Amount though was short of Zar-e-Soem of ostensible price, but neither the court nor the defendant ever objected to the same
Plaintiff himself had pointed out the mistake to the court and sought permission to deposit the requisite amount
Such permission was granted with the consent of all concerned, including the, court and the defendant and the amount was in fact, deposited
Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 primarily laid down a duty upon the court to require the plaintiff to deposit 1/3rd of the sale price in cash within such period as it fixed
Law, however laid down an embargo upon extension of prescribed period of 30 days of filing of the suit
Court did pass such an order and the plaintiff did comply with the same within said period of time
Appellate Court very correctly invoking the rule of "actus curie neminem gravabit" (an act of the Court shall prejudice no man) and decreed the suit.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--Vide Mutation No. 2209 attested on 24-6-2003 the petitioner purchased the suit-land for a consideration of Rs.2,75,
000. On 2-9-2003 the respondent filed a suit for possession' by pre-emption. His case was that the land has, in fact, been sold for Rs.2,50,
000. He claimed to be a Shafi Sharik, Khalit and Jar. Performance of talbs was also pleaded. The petitioner filed a written statement. The suit came up before the learned trial Court on 2-9-2003 when a direction was issued to the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.83,334 within 30 days by way of 1/3rd. This was done. On 21-6-2004 the respondent himself filed an application that the Court has passed an incorrect order and sought permission to deposit Rs.8333. The petitioner did not object and the amount was accordingly deposited. Issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties were framed. All the issues including the matter of superior right and talbs were answered in favour of the respondent while it was held that the land has been sold for Rs.2,75,
000. After answering all the issues in the manner aforesaid, the learned trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit on 2-4-2008 on the ground that the respondent has failed to deposit entire 1/3rd (described in the judgment as court-fee) within 30 days. The first appeal was filed by the respondent. The petitioner did not at all question the findings on the issues. The appeal had been allowed by the learned ADJ, Mandi Baha -ud-Din, on 7-10-2008 and the suit has been decreed subject to payment of the balance amount of consideration.
2. Learned counsel contends that since the respondent knew that the amount of consideration mentioned in the mutation is Rs.2,75,000, it was his own duty to have himself deposited the 1/3rd accordingly within the time prescribed by law.
3. I have examined the copies of the records. The history of the case has been stated above. There is no denial that the learned trial Court directed the respondent to deposit a particular amount as 1/3rd. It deposited within the prescribed time. The amount was short of the 1/3rd of the ostensible price. Neither the Court nor the petitioner ever objected. It was the respondent himself who pointed out the mistake to the Court and sought permission to deposit the requisite amount. This permission was granted with consent of all concerned including the Court and the petitioner. The amount was, in fact, deposited.
4. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel, I find it to be without any force. Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, primarily lays down a duty upon the Court to require the plaintiff to deposit 1/3rd of the sale price in cash within such period as it fixed. However, the law lays down an embargo upon extension of period beyond 30 days of the filing of the suit. The Court did pass such an order and the respondent did comply with the same within the said period of time. The learned ADJ has very correctly invoked the rule of "actus curie neminem gravabit." The civil revision accordingly is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-151/L Revision dismissed.