1991 PLP 306 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MEHR DIN and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 306 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MEHR DIN and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 306 (CLC)?
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 1991 PLP 306 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 306 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MEHR DIN and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Faiz Kharal for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 26‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115‑‑‑Pre‑emption decree‑‑‑Trial Court allowing decree‑holder to deduct mortgage amount ‑‑‑Pre‑emptor by depositing specified amount as sale price (after deducting mortgage amount) had complied with order of Court, therefore, question of dismissal of suit for non compliance of direction for deposit of sale price could not arise‑‑‑Orders of Courts below did not suffer from any irregularity or material defect‑‑‑Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Faiz Kharal for Petitioners. The facts leading to this revision briefly are that Mehr Din and Allah Rakha filed a suit for possession through pre‑emption against Muhammad Hussain and four others, the petitioners, in the civil Court. After trial, the suit was decreed subject to the payment of Rs.14,000 after deducting fifth money already deposited and the mortgage money of Rs.1,000 by 28‑5‑1975. Before this date, the respondents‑plaintiffs deposited Rs.13,000 and filed an application for the execution of the decree. Before the decree could be executed the petitioners- defendants filed objection petition under section 47, Cr.P.C. The application was resisted. Two issues were framed. The trial Court dismissed the objection petition. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the order was dismissed by the appellate Court on 9‑6‑1990. Hence this revision.
2. Before me the learned counsel for the petitioners hag contended that since the full sale price of Rs.14,000 was not paid, therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs‑respondents stood automatically dismissed and as such, the execution petition merits rejection. No other point has been raised before me.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I do not feel persuaded to agree with him. I find that in the last para of the judgment the learned trial Court has stated that:‑ "On the bass of my findings above, 1 pass decree for possession of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants through right of pre‑emption subject to payment of Rs.14,000 to the defendants. The plaintiffs are directed to deposit Rs.14,000 after deducting the fifth money if any and the mortgage money of Rs.1,000 by 28‑5‑1975 failing which their suit shall stand dismissed with costs." Since the trial Court had allowed the decree‑holders to deduct mortgage amount of Rs.1,000, therefore, by depositing Rs.13,000 as sale price, they have fully complied with the order of the Court and the question of the dismissal of the suit for non‑compliance of the direction for the deposit of the sale price, does not arise. The impugned orders do not suffer from any irregularity or material defect.
4. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision application is dismissed in limine. A.A./M‑2474/L Revision dismissed.