2009 PLP 1732 (YLR)
ALI MUHAMMAD and others — Appellants Versus GHULAM NABI — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1732 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Zia-ud-Din Khattak, J |
| Parties | ALI MUHAMMAD and others — Appellants Versus GHULAM NABI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act (X of 1987) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1732 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act (X of 1987) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 1732 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Zia-ud-Din Khattak, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1732 (YLR) (ALI MUHAMMAD and others — Appellants Versus GHULAM NABI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Shoab Khan for Appellant
- Date of hearing: 8th June, 2009.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 115(3)
Second revision
By virtue of subsection (3) of S.115, C. P. C., when a revision had been moved before the High Court or District Court, no further application would be entertained by either of them and by virtue of subsection (4) of S.115, C.P.C., the High Court could not entertain a further revision against an order passed in revision by the District Court. 1986-SCMR 1166 ref.
S. 25(2)
Decree passed for a lesser amount than amount already deposited by the pre-emptor
When a decree was passed for a lesser amount, than the amount already deposited by the pre-emptor, the court would refund the excess amount to such pre-emptor.
Judgment & Decree
ZIA-UD-DIN KHATTAK, J.
Pre-emption suit filed by Ghulam Nabi, respondent was decreed by learned Civil Judge-II, Mansehra vide judgment dated 25-6-2005 on payment of Rs.1,00,
000. Appeal No.117/13 of 2005 filed thereagainst was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge-VI, Mansehra vide judgment dated 14-2-2006. After affirmation of the lower Court decree in appeal, the respondent withdrew the excess pre-emption amount. However, on revision the High Court remanded the suit for decision on merits vide judgment dated 2-10-2007. After remand, the petitioner filed an application that the respondent had withdrawn the pre-emption amount therefore, the suit be dismissed. Learned Civil Judge, Mansehra, who seized of the case, dismissed the application vide order dated 17-7-2008. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal which was treated as revision and ultimately dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Mansehra vide judgment dated 26-1-2009. Hence this further revision.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record annexed with the petition.
3. The only question falling fort determination in this case is whether second revision-is permissible under the law. The answer is in negative civil revision are governed under section 115, C.P.C. By virtue of subsection (3) therefore when a revision has been moved before the High Court or District Court, no further application will be entertained by either of them and by virtue of subsection (4) the High Court cannot entertain a further, revision against an order passed in revision by the District Court; 1986 SCMR 1166.
4. On merits too, the case is very clear. Under subsection (2) of section 25 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 when a decree is passed for a lesser amount than the amount already deposited by the pre-emptor the Court shall refund the excess amount to such pre-emptor. In the instant case, the decree was passed for a lesser amount than amount already deposited by the pre-emptor, therefore, he was well within his right to withdraw the excess amount.
5. In the result, this second revision being not maintainable is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./123/P Second revision dismissed.