1981 PLP 293 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD HAYAT‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SURRAYA BEGUM AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 293 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ilyas, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HAYAT‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SURRAYA BEGUM AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 293 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 293 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 293 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD HAYAT‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SURRAYA BEGUM AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Faqir Hussain for Appellant.
- Kh. Muhammad Farooq for Respondent No. 1.
- Kh. Muhammad Tufall for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing : 4th June, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑ S. 22(1).‑Zar‑i‑Panjum‑ Security‑Civil Judge requiring appellant to furnish security instead of directing him to deposit Zar‑i‑Panjum Appellant giving requisite security, held, could not be non‑suited for non‑compliance with direction of trial Court in terms of provision of subsection (1) of S. 22, Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913. (b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑ ‑‑ S. 30 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 10‑Pre‑emption Limitation‑Sale of land made by registered sale‑deed and followed by mutation‑Period of limitation, held to be counted from date of registration of sale‑deed and not from date of sanction of mutation. Ganga Ram and others v. Sardara and another 64 P L R 1916 distinguished.
Judgment & Decree
S. 22(1).‑Zar‑i‑Panjum‑ Security‑Civil Judge requiring appellant to furnish security instead of directing him to deposit Zar‑i‑Panjum Appellant giving requisite security, held, could not be non‑suited for non‑compliance with direction of trial Court in terms of provision of subsection (1) of S. 22, Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913. (b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑ ‑‑ S. 30 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 10‑Pre‑emption Limitation‑Sale of land made by registered sale‑deed and followed by mutation‑Period of limitation, held to be counted from date of registration of sale‑deed and not from date of sanction of mutation. Ganga Ram and others v. Sardara and another 64 P L R 1916 distinguished. Syed Faqir Hussain for Appellant. Kh. Muhammad Farooq for Respondent No. 1. Kh. Muhammad Tufall for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing : 4th June, 1980.