1985 PLP 908 (SCMR)
ISMAIL‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 908 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ISMAIL‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 908 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 908 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 908 (SCMR) (ISMAIL‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 1984.
- After hearing Mr. S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the view taken by the Courts below is correct and no ground exists for interfering with it.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 4‑5‑1976 of the Lahore High Court in R. S. A. No.832 of 1979). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (1 of 1913), S.15‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Plaintiff failing to deposit 1/5th amount as directed by trial Court‑ View of Courts below that no inference could be raised that trial Court, by implication, extended period of time for such deposit found to be correct‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑In a suit for possession by pre‑emption the pre‑emptor was directed to deposit the 1/5th amount by 4th October, 1965 The amount, however, was deposited on 28th October, 1965. The trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that its order had not been complied with. On appeal before the Additional District Judge it was contended that in the circumstances of this case an inference could be raised that the trial Court had, by implication, extended the period of time from 4th October, 1965 to 28th October, 1965. This inference, it was submitted, arose if both the orders dated 4‑10‑1965 and 28‑10‑1965 were read with together. The learned Additional District Judge, however, did not accept this submission holding that no case of implied extension was made out. This conclusion was upheld on second appeal by the High Court. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. After hearing Mr. S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the view taken by the Courts below is correct and no ground exists for interfering with it. This petition must, accordingly, fail and is dismissed hereby. S . Q Petition dismissed.