1972 PLP 296 (SCMR)
ABDUL AZIZ‑Petitioner Versus AZIZ‑UL‑HAQ‑Respondent
| Citation | 1972 PLP 296 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL AZIZ‑Petitioner Versus AZIZ‑UL‑HAQ‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 PLP 296 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 PLP 296 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1972 PLP 296 (SCMR) (ABDUL AZIZ‑Petitioner Versus AZIZ‑UL‑HAQ‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 29th June 1972.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 1st March 1972, in Civil Revision No. 442 of 1968). . Pre‑emption‑Suit for‑Plaintiff depositing Zar‑e‑Punjam a day later than that fixed by Court but otherwise having made effort to deposit money within time by getting challan passed by Court- Held, plaintiff made valid tender to Court 'and it was sufficient compliance with order of Court.
Judgment & Decree
WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑‑The respondent filed a suit for possession of the land in dispute by pre‑emption. The learned trial Court fixed the case for 24th May 1968, and passed an order under section 22(1) of the Pre‑emption Act requiring the respon dent to deposit 1/5th of the probable value of the land in dispute before the 24th May 1968. The respondent failed to deposit the amount. On the 23rd May 1968, he moved an application for extension of time. The learned trial Court extended time up to 31st May 1968. The amount was not even deposited on the 31st May 1968, and instead the amount was deposited on the 1st June 1968. The petitioner, thereupon, raised an objection that the suit was liable to be dismissed under section 2(4) of the Act as the amount had not been deposited in time. The respondent filed an affidavit on the 12th June 1968, stating that he could not deposit the amount on the 31st May 1968, as he went to the Bank at 11 a.m. and the Bank had closed at 10 a.m. He also filed a Bank certificate to the effect that on the 31st May 1968,‑the Bank was closed at 10‑30 a.m. and that the respondent had come to deposit the amount. The learned trial Court passed an order dated the 19th June 1968, holding that the deposit of Zar‑a punjam on the 1st June 1968, was within time. The petitioner challenged this order in revision before the High Court which was dismissed on the 1st March 1972. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the respondent had made a valid tender to the Courtly by getting the challan passed and by making an effort to makes the deposit within time. The learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in observing that this was sufficient compliance of the order dated the 23rd May 1968, and no question of any extension arose. In our opinion, the respondent has not committed any default. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused..