CLC 1981

1981 PLP 1689 (CLC)

Mirza GHULAM HUSSAIN‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Regular Second Appeal No. 910 of 1979, decided on 25th April, 1981.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Ilyas, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1981 PLP 1689 (CLC)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Muhammad Ilyas, J
Parties Mirza GHULAM HUSSAIN‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑Respondent
Primary Law (c) Court Fees Act (VII of 1870)‑, (a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 1689 (CLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: (c) Court Fees Act (VII of 1870)‑, (a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 1689 (CLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 1689 (CLC) (Mirza GHULAM HUSSAIN‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(c) Court Fees Act (VII of 1870)‑ (a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑

Representation

  • ‑‑ S. 22‑Pre‑emption‑Zar‑e‑Panjum not deposited and court‑fee not paid in time‑Fraud alleged to have been played on appellant by his first counsel who allegedly kept with him Zar‑e‑Panjum given by appellant and applied for extension in time‑No reason given for appellant's one year's silence qua said fraud‑Held . Looking at all circumstances appellant a party to whatever counsel had done on his behalf‑Petitioner cannot escape legal consequences of failure to deposit Zar‑e‑Panjum in time.
  • Sh. Muhammad Naseem for Appellants.
  • Allah Wasaya Malik for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

(b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑-- , ‑‑‑ S. 22‑Pre‑emption ‑Zar‑e‑Panjum‑--Plaintiff not depositing Zar‑e‑Panjum in time but making application for extension of time‑Does so at his own risk‑Plaintiff's application to allow exten sion of time to deposit Zar‑e‑Panjum not decided before time run out‑Plaintiff, held, cannot escape legal consequences of uon-deposit of jar‑e‑Panjum on that score alone and plead inability to deposit amount on account of act of Court. Elahi Bakhsh and others v. Mst. Sardar Begum P L D 1967 B 1 5 ; Saeed Ahmad and others v. Karam Singh and another P L D 1949 Lah. 380 and Gharib Shah v. Alam Shah P L D 195lr, Pesh. 26 ref. ‑‑ S. 28, Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.`3 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 149 read with O. VII, r. 11‑Court‑fec‑ Deficiency, making up ofLimitation‑‑Appellant not making up deficiency in courtfee within period of limitation Appellant not showing sufficient cause for‑his default‑Valuable right having ac6cued to respondent due to running out of period of limitation such right, held, cannot be taken away from respondent. Mst. Walayal Khatun v. Khalil Khan and another P L D 1979 S C 821 re

1. Dates of bearing :16th February ; 16th and 24th March, 1981.

Judgment & Decree

(b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑-- , ‑‑‑ S. 22‑Pre‑emption ‑Zar‑e‑Panjum‑--Plaintiff not depositing Zar‑e‑Panjum in time but making application for extension of time‑Does so at his own risk‑Plaintiff's application to allow exten sion of time to deposit Zar‑e‑Panjum not decided before time run out‑Plaintiff, held, cannot escape legal consequences of uon-deposit of jar‑e‑Panjum on that score alone and plead inability to deposit amount on account of act of Court. Elahi Bakhsh and others v. Mst. Sardar Begum P L D 1967 B 1 5 ; Saeed Ahmad and others v. Karam Singh and another P L D 1949 Lah. 380 and Gharib Shah v. Alam Shah P L D 195lr, Pesh. 26 ref. (c) Court Fees Act (VII of 1870)‑

‑‑ S. 28, Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.`3 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 149 read with O. VII, r. 11‑Court‑fec‑ Deficiency, making up ofLimitation‑‑Appellant not making up deficiency in courtfee within period of limitation Appellant not showing sufficient cause for‑his default‑Valuable right having ac6cued to respondent due to running out of period of limitation such right, held, cannot be taken away from respondent. Mst. Walayal Khatun v. Khalil Khan and another P L D 1979 S C 821 re

1. Sh. Muhammad Naseem for Appellants. Allah Wasaya Malik for Respondents. Dates of bearing :16th February ; 16th and 24th March, 1981.