1995 PLP 1011 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JAMIL UR REHMAN and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1011 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISMAIL ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JAMIL UR REHMAN and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (IX of 1991)---‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1011 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (IX of 1991)---‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 1011 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1011 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ISMAIL ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JAMIL UR REHMAN and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Amjad Pervaiz for Petitioner. Tariq Shameem for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th January, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.24‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115‑‑‑Non‑deposit of 1/3rd of pre‑emption money by specified date fixed by Court‑‑‑Dismissal of pre -emption suit‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Court's direction for deposit of 1/3rd of pre‑emption money was admittedly not complied with‑‑‑Time for deposit of 1/3rd of pre- emption money having been fixed by the statute itself viz S.24, Punjab Pre -emption Act, 1991, same could not be extended by the Court ‑‑‑Pre‑emption suit was thus, rightly dismissed on account of non‑deposit of specified amount within statutory period. Awal Noor v. District Judge Karak and 8 others 1992 SCMR 746 fol.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Amjad Pervaiz for Petitioner. Tariq Shameem for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th January, 1995. This petition under section 115 of C.P.C. arises out of a suit for possession through pre‑emption filed by the petitioner against the respondents which was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the petitioner had failed to deposit 1/3rd of the pre‑emption money within the time fixed by the Court. The decree of the trial Court was affirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge on 18‑1‑1992.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Courts below have erred in holding that the deposit made on 15th May, 1991 was not due compliance of the order directing the deposit and in any case, the Courts should have extended time for depositing pre‑emption money.
3. None of the contentions raised by the learned counsel has any force. There is no dispute that on 4‑5‑1991, the trial Court had directed the petitioner to deposit 1/3rd of the pre‑emption money before 14th April, 1991. That order was not complied with but the deposit was made on 12‑5‑1991.
4. So far as the question of extension of time is concerned, the matter, stands concluded by the pronouncement of Supreme Court of Pakistan in Awal Noor v. District Judge Karak and 8 others 1992 SCMR 746 wherein while considering section 24 of North‑West Frontier Province Pre‑emption Act (X of 1987) which is in pari materia with section 24 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1991 wherein it was held that the time for deposit of 1/3rd of the pre‑emption money had been fixed by the statute itself, it cannot be extended by the Court. In view of what has been stated above, this petition fails and is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. AA./1957/L Revision dismissed.