1988 PLP 1371 (SCMR)
Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1371 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1371 (SCMR)?
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 1988 PLP 1371 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1371 (SCMR) (Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.160 of 1981).
- Nemo for Respondent (in C.P. No.160 of 1981).
- Ahmad Waheed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.83 of 1981).
- S.Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent (in C.P. 83 of 1981).
- Mahmood A . Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.875 of 1983).
- Nemo for Respondent (in C.P. No.875 of 1983).
- Malik Talib Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.1350 of 1983) .
- Nemo for Respondent (in C.P. No.1350 of 1983).
- Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1988.
- Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.160 of 1981).
- Ahmad Waheed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.83 of 1981).
- S.Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent (in C.P. 83 of 1981).
- Mahmood A . Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.875 of 1983).
- Malik Talib Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.1350 of 1983) .
Headnotes / Summary
S.21--Pre-emption suit--Leave to appeal granted to examine questions: Whether late deposit of pre-emption money would deprive the decree-holder of the benefit obtained through the decree; lack of control over the circumstances by the decree-holder; effect of delay occurred on account of the minority of decree-holder in connection with which, inter alia, interpretation of S.6, Limitation Act, 19108 was involved; whether it was not permissible for an Appellate Court to grant extension of time or fresh time for deposit of pre-emption money after decision in appeal; whether in case the Appellate Court when permitting to grant such time exercises discretion in favour of plaintiff and in fact grants time the High Court should set aside such an order. Bhai Khan v. Allah Bakhsh 1986 S C M R 849 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑In all these four cases wherein petitioners/ pre‑emptors have sought leave to appeal against separate judgments of the High Court in separate cases, one question is common; namely, whether the late deposit of the pre‑emption money in each case would deprive the decree‑holder of the benefit obtained through the decree. In one case, the delay occurred on account of the minority of the decree‑holder in connection with which, inter alia, interpretation of section 6 of the Limitation Act would be involved. In another case the question involved would be whether it is not permissible for an Appellate Court to grant extension of time or fresh time for deposit of pre‑emption money after decision in the appeal. Another related question would be whether in case the Appellate Court when permitting to grant such time exercises discretion in favour of the plaintiff and in fact grants time the High Court should set aside such an order. Similar other questions including the one about the lack of control over the circumstances by the plaintiff decree‑holder, would also need examination. A judgment of this Court in Bhai Khan v. Allah Bakhsh (1986 S C M R 849) has been cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ pre‑emptors. Some of the questions involved are of general public importance. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. Security Rs.5,000 in each case. The appeals shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents. M.B.A./Z‑32/8 Leave granted.