2017 PLP 60 (CLCN)
MUHAMMAD SHAHID alias SHAHID AZIZ BAJWA — Appellant Versus NASIR IQBAL and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 60 (CLCN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAHID alias SHAHID AZIZ BAJWA — Appellant Versus NASIR IQBAL and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 60 (CLCN)?
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 2017 PLP 60 (CLCN)?
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: 2017 PLP 60 (CLCN) (MUHAMMAD SHAHID alias SHAHID AZIZ BAJWA — Appellant Versus NASIR IQBAL and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Zahid Imran for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 24
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11
Zar-e-Soem, fixation of
Scope
Plaintiff filed suit for pre-emption to pre-empt sale of suit property, in which Trial Court on the first date ordered plaintiff to deposit Zar-e-Soem within one month
Before expiry of one month, plaintiff filed application seeking determination of "probable value" of suit property on plea that sale price mentioned in sale deed appeared to be inflated
Plaintiff substantiated his said plea by producing one year's average value prepared by revenue authorities showing value of suit property
Pending said application, plaintiff filed review petition to seek permission to deposit Zar-e-Soem on basis of said average value which the Trial Court dismissed leaving plaintiff to deposit Zar-e-Soem on his own risk
Proviso II of S. 24(2) of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 had two parts: first dealt with situation, where no sale price was mentioned in sale deed or in mutation, in which case, court was competent to require deposit of one-third of probable value of property; whereas per second part of the proviso, if sale price mentioned in sale deed, appeared to be inflated, court shall require deposit of one-third of probable value of suit property in real perspective
Words "appears to be" as used in proviso II suggested for preliminary probe by court before directing deposit of Zar-e-Soem
Penal consequences of S. 24(2) of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 would become operative if plaintiff had failed to make deposit under S. 24(1) of the Act
Suit could not be dismissed in case of no deposit of Zar-e-Soem when in determining probable value of suit property, court had not entered into any probe, particularly when plaintiff had specifically moved Trial Court for such determination much before the target date fixed by court for deposit of Zar-e-soem
Trial Court had failed to determine probable value of property
Trial Court while rejecting plaint of suit had completely ignored the fact that when no amount of Zar-e-Soem was fixed by Trial Court and review petition remained un-disposed of, plaintiff was at liberty to deposit any amount towards Zar-e-Soem
Plaintiff deposited one-third of amount as shown to be one year's average
Plaintiff's case was not that of non-deposit towards Zar-e-Soem, or deposit beyond limitation of thirty days
Suit was proceedable on its merits and its plaint was not to be rejected under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.
Impugned order of rejection was not sustainable under law
High Court by setting aside the impugned order, restored suit proceedings directing Trial Court to dispose of application already pending for determination of probable value of property
Appeal was allowed accordingly. [Paras. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
Regular First Appeal No.288 of 2009, decided on 12th March, 2015. Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)
S. 24
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11
Zar-e-Soem, fixation of
Scope
Plaintiff filed suit for pre-emption to pre-empt sale of suit property, in which Trial Court on the first date ordered plaintiff to deposit Zar-e-Soem within one month
Before expiry of one month, plaintiff filed application seeking determination of "probable value" of suit property on plea that sale price mentioned in sale deed appeared to be inflated
Plaintiff substantiated his said plea by producing one year's average value prepared by revenue authorities showing value of suit property
Pending said application, plaintiff filed review petition to seek permission to deposit Zar-e-Soem on basis of said average value which the Trial Court dismissed leaving plaintiff to deposit Zar-e-Soem on his own risk
Proviso II of S. 24(2) of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 had two parts: first dealt with situation, where no sale price was mentioned in sale deed or in mutation, in which case, court was competent to require deposit of one-third of probable value of property; whereas per second part of the proviso, if sale price mentioned in sale deed, appeared to be inflated, court shall require deposit of one-third of probable value of suit property in real perspective
Words "appears to be" as used in proviso II suggested for preliminary probe by court before directing deposit of Zar-e-Soem
Penal consequences of S. 24(2) of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 would become operative if plaintiff had failed to make deposit under S. 24(1) of the Act
Suit could not be dismissed in case of no deposit of Zar-e-Soem when in determining probable value of suit property, court had not entered into any probe, particularly when plaintiff had specifically moved Trial Court for such determination much before the target date fixed by court for deposit of Zar-e-soem
Trial Court had failed to determine probable value of property
Trial Court while rejecting plaint of suit had completely ignored the fact that when no amount of Zar-e-Soem was fixed by Trial Court and review petition remained un-disposed of, plaintiff was at liberty to deposit any amount towards Zar-e-Soem
Plaintiff deposited one-third of amount as shown to be one year's average
Plaintiff's case was not that of non-deposit towards Zar-e-Soem, or deposit beyond limitation of thirty days
Suit was proceedable on its merits and its plaint was not to be rejected under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.
Impugned order of rejection was not sustainable under law
High Court by setting aside the impugned order, restored suit proceedings directing Trial Court to dispose of application already pending for determination of probable value of property
Appeal was allowed accordingly. [Paras. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the judgment] Hasnain Nawaz Khan v. Ghulam Akbar and another PLD 2013 SC 489 rel. Syed Ishtiaq Haider Sherazi for Appellant. Ch. Zahid Imran for Respondents.