1993 PLP 249 (SCMR)
Mst. ROBINA and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus IJAZ HUSSAIN KAZMI and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 249 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. ROBINA and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus IJAZ HUSSAIN KAZMI and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 249 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 249 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 249 (SCMR) (Mst. ROBINA and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus IJAZ HUSSAIN KAZMI and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Qazi Muhammad Salim Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Talib Hussain Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 7th May, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 16‑1‑1985 passed in C.R. No.166 of 1984). (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.148‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Question relating to exercise of discretion by First Appellate Court to grant extension of time or not‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine the question that even though the question whether extension should be granted or not to appellants for depositing money in accordance with order of Trial Court, was within the discretion of First Appellate Court, yet such Court did not exercise its discretion in this regard one way or the other for its judgment did not indicate application of mind to that aspect of the case. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.XLI, R.5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Leave was granted on assumption that First Appellate Court had not applied its mind while suspending execution of Trial Court's decree‑‑‑Judgment of First Appellate Court, however, showed that while passing impugned order it had applied its mind and exercised discretion in accordance with law‑‑‑Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Respondent No.2: Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑‑This appeal by leave arises in the following circumstances:‑‑
1. Appellants' suit for pre‑emption was decreed on 3‑1‑1984 on condition of deposit of Rs.37,815 minus 1/5th pre‑emption money already deposited before 8‑2‑1984 failing which the suit was to stand dismissed. The appellants filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, II, Sahiwal vide judgment and decree dated 14‑3‑1984. The appellants filed a Civil Revision which too was dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court vide order dated 16‑1‑1985. The appellants sought leave to appeal on the ground that "even though the question whether extension should be granted or not was within the discretion of the learned Additional District Judge, yet he did not exercise his discretion in this regard one way or the other, for, his judgment does not indicate that he had applied his mind to this aspect of the case". Leave was granted on 31‑5‑1988.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that when the appeal in the first instance came up before the learned Additional District Judge, II, Sahiwal with an application for suspension of the order dated 3‑1‑1984, directing deposit before 8‑2‑1984, the appeal was admitted and it was directed that "the respondents are restrained from drawing the pre emption money, if deposited by the decree‑holder in Court within time till the decision of this appeal". This is vide order dated 29‑1‑1984. Learned counsel submitted that the Additional District Judge II, Sahiwal had applied his mind to the request of the appellants for suspension of the order dated 3‑1‑1984 but had not acceded to. He only directed that the respondents shall not withdraw the amount till the hearing of the appeal.
3. Since leave was granted on the assumption that the learned Additional District Judge had not applied his mind which he had done as is apparent from his order dated 29‑1‑1984. There is no force in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs. A.A./R‑207/S Appeal dismissed.