2002 PLP 1010 (MLD)
AHMED YAR — Petitioner Versus ABDUL RAZZAQ and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1010 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AHMED YAR — Petitioner Versus ABDUL RAZZAQ and 2 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1010 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1010 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1010 (MLD) (AHMED YAR — Petitioner Versus ABDUL RAZZAQ and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Younis Sheikh and Ch. Muhammad Siddique Safdar for Petitioner.
- Rana Muhammad Khalid Ayyaz and Ch. Muhammad Anwar-ul- Haq for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S.12
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.148
Suit for specific performance of agreement
Failure to deposit remaining decretal amount
Suit was decreed with direction to plaintiff/decree-holder to deposit remaining decretal amount upto stipulated date and in case of his failure to deposit the said amount accordingly, suit would be presumed to be dismissed
Plaintiff, who failed to deposit amount according to the direction of the Court, applied for extension of time for deposit of amount after expiry of the date fixed for deposit of amount
Trial Court and Appellate Court concurrently dismissed the application of decree holder
Judgment and decree itself having provided that in the event of non-deposit of amount suit would stand dismissed, same already stood dismissed before filing of application for extension of time and Court had become functus officio
Application for extension of time was rightly dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Rana Muhammad Khalid Ayyaz and Ch. Muhammad Anwar-ul- Haq for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th September, 2001 Petitioner filed a suit for specific performance which was allowed vide order, dated 24-6-1993 in terms of which he was directed to pay the remaining decretal amount i.e. Rs.40,000 till 10-7-1993 failing which it was stipulated that the suit shall be presumed to be dismissed. The suit amount was not deposited. On 19-7-1993, petitioner moved the learned trial Court for extension of time which was refused by the trial Court vide order, dated 3-10-1994. Appeal against the said order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 5-9-1995. These concurrent orders have been challenged in this petition. Relying on a D.B. judgment of this Court in Hamid Ali Khan v. Muhammad Anwar (2000 CLC .1633), learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Courts below, have not correctly appreciated the point and that the learned trial Court could extend time which it refused for reasons not sustainable in law.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, defended the impugned order with reference to the following case law:-- AIR 1923 Oudh 16, AIR 1974 Bombay 104, 1992 MLD 31, PLD 1997 Lahore 177 and PLD 2001 Supreme Court 489.
3. Heard.
4. Admittedly, petitioner had not moved the learned trial Court before the cut up date fixed by the learned trial Court for deposit of the remaining amount in question. The judgment and decree itself provided that in the event of non-deposit of the said amount; the suit shall stand dismissed which would mean that on 10-7-1993 the suit P' stood dismissed and thereafter the Court had become functus officio. The facts in the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable as in the said case the trial Court had passed merely a preliminary decree and .had not become functus officio. In Muhammad Nawaz v, Muhammad Sadiq (1995 SCMR 105) wherein at page 457, it was held by the august Supreme Court as. under: "However, neither a trial Court nor an appellate Court can extend time for deposit of pre-emption money once the matter stands disposed of, and 'it is no longer pending before it. In such an event, the direction contained in the original decree to the effect that in case of failure to deposit the pre-emption money the suit shall stand dismissed, becomes effective."
5. For what has been discussed above I do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed. H.B.T./A-449/L Petition dismissed.