2009 PLP 1040 (MLD)
KHAN RAEES KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RASES KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1040 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHAN RAEES KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RASES KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act (X of 1987) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1040 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: 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 1040 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1040 (MLD) (KHAN RAEES KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RASES KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Ss.6 & 13---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Suit for pre emption---Deposit of 1/3rd of pre-emption money---Respondent/pre emptor deposited 1/3rd of the pre-emption money as was mentioned in the suit mutation---Counsel for petitioner/defendant/vendee, however, contested that point on the ground that pre-emptor had not deposited 1/3rd of sale consideration shown in the mutation, but less than that amount---Even the court of appeal had formed the same view and if any error was in that regard on the part of the Trial Court or of the appeal court, the defendant should have applied for review of the judgment which remedy was available to him---When fact of deposit of 1/3rd was made a disputed one by the 'defendant, then it was to be ascertained after recording evidence, but that process could only be considered at the trial stage and not at pre-trial stage---Impugned judgments, in circumstances did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity to attract revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Petition was dismissed.
- M. Qasim Khan Khattak for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.6 & 13
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115
Suit for pre emption
Deposit of 1/3rd of pre-emption money
Respondent/pre emptor deposited 1/3rd of the pre-emption money as was mentioned in the suit mutation
Counsel for petitioner/defendant/vendee, however, contested that point on the ground that pre-emptor had not deposited 1/3rd of sale consideration shown in the mutation, but less than that amount
Even the court of appeal had formed the same view and if any error was in that regard on the part of the Trial Court or of the appeal court, the defendant should have applied for review of the judgment which remedy was available to him
When fact of deposit of 1/3rd was made a disputed one by the 'defendant, then it was to be ascertained after recording evidence, but that process could only be considered at the trial stage and not at pre-trial stage
Impugned judgments, in circumstances did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity to attract revisional jurisdiction of High Court
Petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.
Impugned herein are the judgments of the two learned Courts below, the trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner on 17-7-2008 and the appeal Court dismissed his appeal on 18-12-2008.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondent is dead and wants to bring his legal heirs on record. However, this petition is still at the stage of motion hearing and when no notice has been issued to the respondent, therefore, there is no need to implead his L.Rs.
3. Learned counsel requested for adjournment to prepare 'the brief but he has already filed the petition from the brief, which he was having in his possession, therefore, adjournment is disallowed. Moreso, when revision is a matter in between the High Court and, subordinate Court and this Court has to see as to whether any of the essential conditions contained in section 115, C.P.C. are attracted due to any illegality or irregularity committed by the subordinate Courts.
4. The respondent/pre-emptor deposited 1/3rd of the pre-emption money which was mentioned in the suit mutation as is evident from the order of the trial Court, dated 17-7-2008. However; learned counsel contest this point on the ground that the pre-emptor has not deposited 1/3rd of the sale consideration shown in the mutation but less amount, however, even the Court of appeal has formed the same view and if there was any error in this regard on the part of the trial Court or of the appeal Court, he petitioner should .have applied for review of the judgment which remedy was available to him.
5. True that deposit of 1/3rd of the sale consideration clearly ascertainable from the record is mandatory for the pre-emptor but when this fact is made a disputed one by the defendant then it is, to be ascertained after recording evidence but that process can only be conducted at the trial stage and not at pre-trial stage. The impugned judgments, therefore, do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity to attract revisional jurisdiction of this Court hence this petition is dismissed. Anyhow, the petitioner still have a remedy to repeat the application if at any stage of the trial, the amount of sale consideration is established to be more than that which has been tentatively determined by the Courts below at this stage. H.R.T./99/P Petition dismissed.