1992 PLP 1802 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ALIM KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUR RASHID and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1802 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ., and Wali Muhammad Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALIM KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUR RASHID and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1802 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1802 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ., and Wali Muhammad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1802 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ALIM KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUR RASHID and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and H. Bashir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th May, 1992.
- We have heard Mr. Hussain Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner and have perused the record of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Commissioner had no power to order the petitioner for the deposit of the sale consideration as under the scheme of PATA Regulation he was bound to refer the dispute to the Jirga and could pass no order except on the question of limitation raised by the opposite side. We are afraid this contention of the learned counsel has no force as under the N.‑W.F.P. Pre‑emption Act, 1950 which is extended to the areas where suit land is situated, the Court has to pass an order for the deposit of pre‑emption money before the framing of issues and since the Deputy Commissioner under PATA Regulation can only refer the matter to the Jirga after framing of the issues, he has to pass the order for the deposit of pre‑emption money for further progress of the pre‑emption suit. The petitioner/pre‑emptor did not raise this objection before the learned Deputy Commissioner rather acquiesced in the same so much that on the expiry of the original time fixed he sought extension of time which was allowed to him. It appears that the petitioner had no money and asked for further extension to arrange for money which‑obviously was not a genuine ground for the further extension of time. The orders of the special forums are perfectly legal and the learned High Court for substantial reasons declined to interfere with the same.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 1‑10‑1991 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in W.P.No.1749/91). Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Regulation (II of 1975)‑‑‑ . ‑‑‑‑Regln. 4‑‑‑North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (XIV of 1950), S.23‑‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑‑Deputy Commissioner has power to order the plaintiff for the deposit of the sale consideration before framing the issues. Under the N.‑W.F.P. Pre‑emption Act, 1950 which is extended to the areas where suit land is situated, the Court has to pass an order for the deposit of pre‑emption money before the framing of issues and since the Deputy Commissioner under PATA Regulation can only refer the matter to the Jirga after, framing of the issues, he has to pass the order for the deposit of pre emption money for further progress of the pre‑emption suit. In the present case the petitioner/pre‑emptor did not raise the objection before the Deputy Commissioner that he had no power to order the petitioner/pre‑emptor to deposit the sale consideration rather acquiesced in the same so much so that on the expiry of the original time fixed he sought extension of time which was allowed to him. It appears that the petitioner‑ had no money and asked for further extension to arrange for money which obviously was not a genuine ground for the further extension of time. The orders of the special forums being perfectly legal High Court for substantial reasons declined to interfere with the same.
Judgment & Decree
WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑‑‑Muhammad Alim Khan, petitioner herein, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 1‑10‑1991, whereby his writ petition challenging the order of the hierarchy of special forums constituted under PATA Regulation, was dismissed. The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre‑emption of the suit land against Abdur Rashid vendee/respondent No.1. He was directed to deposit Rs. 2,00,000, as pre emption money plus District Council fee within three months i.e. on or before 19‑5‑1990, on which date a request for extension of time up to 30‑7‑1990 was made but the learned Deputy Commissioner granted extension up to 30; 6‑1990 and on the failure of the petitioner to deposit the balance of sale consideration, his suit was dismissed, and his appeal and revision against it could not succeed. He invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court which too, was dismissed vide the impugned order. We have heard Mr. Hussain Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner and have perused the record of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Commissioner had no power to order the petitioner for the deposit of the sale consideration as under the scheme of PATA Regulation he was bound to refer the dispute to the Jirga and could pass no order except on the question of limitation raised by the opposite side. We are afraid this contention of the learned counsel has no force as under the N.‑W.F.P. Pre‑emption Act, 1950 which is extended to the areas where suit land is situated, the Court has to pass an order for the deposit of pre‑emption money before the framing of issues and since the Deputy Commissioner under PATA Regulation can only refer the matter to the Jirga after framing of the issues, he has to pass the order for the deposit of pre‑emption money for further progress of the pre‑emption suit. The petitioner/pre‑emptor did not raise this objection before the learned Deputy Commissioner rather acquiesced in the same so much that on the expiry of the original time fixed he sought extension of time which was allowed to him. It appears that the petitioner had no money and asked for further extension to arrange for money which‑obviously was not a genuine ground for the further extension of time. The orders of the special forums are perfectly legal and the learned High Court for substantial reasons declined to interfere with the same. The instant petition, bereft of any substance, is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. M.BA./M‑1657/S Petition dismissed.