1986 PLP 854 (CLC)
ABDUL LATIF and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM PARVEZ‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 854 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Jabbar Khan, J |
| Parties | ABDUL LATIF and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM PARVEZ‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 854 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 854 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Jabbar Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 854 (CLC) (ABDUL LATIF and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM PARVEZ‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Bar for Petitioners.
- Qaisar Mahmood Shafi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th February, 1976.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.22‑‑Zar‑e‑Panjam‑‑Application for extension of time to deposit Zar‑e‑Panjam‑‑Court, held, was competent to extend date for deposit of Zar‑e‑Panjam instead of allowing pre‑empior to produce personal surety if application in that respect was within time. Malik Haider Ullah v. Murad Ali Khan P L D 1972 S C 69 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Haider Ullah v. Murad Ali Khan P L D 1972 S C 69 ref. Ch. Abdul Bar for Petitioners. Qaisar Mahmood Shafi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 16th February, 1976. Abdul Latif etc. petitioners have filed this revision petition list the order, dated 7‑2‑1975 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class, Khanpur, by which he rejected the prayer of the petitioner submitting personal surety instead of deposit of 1/5th of pre‑emption
2. The brief facts of the case are that in a case of pre‑emption, Muhammad Aslam Pervaiz, a pre‑emptor (respondent) applied to the Court vide his application, dated 7‑2‑1975 that he may be allowed to file a surety of the Zar‑e‑panjam amount of the property in dispute instead of paying the same in cash. Learned trial Court although did not allow him to file a personal surety yet it extended the date to deposit the Zar‑e‑panjam and ordered the applicant to deposit the same by 7‑3‑1975. This was taken exception to by the petitioner who have filed this revision petition challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Court in this matter.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the impugned order. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on Malik Hidayat Ullah v. Murad Ali Khan P L D 1972 S C 69 in which a similar matter on all fours came before their Lordships of the Supreme Court wherein it was held that the Court was competent to extend the date for the deposit of Zar‑e‑panjam if the application was within time instead of allowing him to produce personal surety. Learned counsel for the petitioners while confronted with this situation, has conceded that the impugned order is not liable to be. interfered with. Accordingly, the civil revision is dismissed. H. B. T. Revision dismissed.