1982 PLP 364 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHAFOOR AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BUX AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 364 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Mushtaq Hussain and Shafi-ur-Rehman, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFOOR AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BUX AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Settlement Scheme No. VIII |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 364 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Settlement Scheme No. VIII as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 364 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Mushtaq Hussain and Shafi-ur-Rehman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 364 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHAFOOR AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BUX AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Amjad Hussain, Advocate, Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Malik Amjad Hussain, Advocate, Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the order passed .by the Lahore High Court in W. P. No. 115/R of 1976). --Para. 3-A-Auction .not-yet confirmed-Not effective-Application praying for grant of time to pay transfer price having been made within 90 days of resumption order, para. 3-A, held, applicable. Date of, hearing: 19th October, 1980.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Amjad Hussain, Advocate, Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of, hearing: 19th October, 1980. MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.‑Shop No. P‑17, B‑III was transferred to Muhammad Bux, respondent, in 1967 for Rs.
960. No payment having been made by him, a Notice of Demand was issued to him on 2‑5‑70 which he received on 4‑5‑70 giving him thirty days to pay. He paid no heed to it. On 30‑6‑70 the shop was, therefore, resumed and a Notice of resumption was issued to hint the same day.
2. On 3‑7‑70 Muhammad Bux, respondent, filed an application praying that two months time, may be allowed to him to pay the transfer price. This application was rejected. The respondent again filed an applica tion in which he submitted that he bad paid Rs. 500, and he may be allowed to pay the balance of Rs. 460, in three months. This was rejected. He presented another application asking for two months time, which met the same fate. On 24‑7‑70 he applied again submitting that he had paid the entire price and that the shop may, therefore, not be put to auction. This was rejected on the ground that the auction had already been held and confirmed.
3. He appealed to the Settlement Commissioner who ‑ on 14‑6‑73 remanded the case but the remand order was set aside in a Revision Petition filed by the petitioner. A Writ Petition No. 215/R of 1976 filed by the respondents was accepted by the High Court where for this petition for special leave to appeal.
4. It has been submitted before us that paragraph 3‑A of‑ the Scheme was not applicable because the property had already been put to auction and was, therefore, not available. This submission ignores the fact that the first application made by the respondent was for permission to allow him to make the payment of the balance of the price on the same day, that is, when the property was put to auction. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the property was not available and had, in fact, been auctioned when he made the application. 1n case the auction had not yet been confirmed confirmed and was, therefore, not effective. The application having been made within 90 days of the resumption order, paragraph 3‑A is applicable with full force and we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Lahore High Court. Leave to Appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.