1989 PLP 505 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD TAJ and another — Petitioners Versus Subedar MUHAMMAD RASHEED — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 505 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TAJ and another — Petitioners Versus Subedar MUHAMMAD RASHEED — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 505 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 505 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 505 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD TAJ and another — Petitioners Versus Subedar MUHAMMAD RASHEED — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Anwar Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th October, 1988.
- Mirza Anwar Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 12-1-1988 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in C.R. No.231-D of 1987).
S.15--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXX, R.14--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Pre-emptor was to deposit pre-emption amount before specified date--Such amount was however, deposited on specified date and not before that date--Effect--High Court's view, that in absence of valid extension of time by a competent forum, after time for deposit of pre-emption money had run out, and such amount having not been deposited in time, pre-emption decree became void and pre-emption suit stood automatically dismissed, was endorsed by Supreme Court--Petition for leave to appeal being devoid of merit was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The petitioners' suit for possession through pre‑emption was decreed by a Civil Judge First Class, Kahuta. The sale price was fixed at Rs.4,000 and the petitioners were directed to deposit the balance sale price, after deducting the amount of Zar‑e‑Punjam, before 4‑12‑1977 failing which the suit was to be deemed to have been dismissed. The deposit, however, was made on 4‑12‑1977 and not before 4‑12‑1977 as directed by the Court. Notwithstanding the above, the suit land was, thereafter, mutated in favour of the pre‑emptor on 29‑12‑1980 in execution of the decree of pre emption. Some 5 years later, however, the respondent filed an application under section 47 Civil Procedure Code for annulment of the effects of execution and for '"' avoidance of the mutation. On 29‑3‑1985, he also moved an application for condonation of delay. These applications were dismissed by the learned Civil Judge but on an appeal the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 13‑12‑1986 reversed the decision of the trial Court. The last=mentioned order of the learned Additional District Judge was affirmed by the High Court on a revision. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. We have heard Mirza Anwar Baig, learned counsel for the petitioners, but are inclined to agree with the view taken by the High Court that in the absence of a valid extension of time by the competent forum after the time for payment/deposit of pre‑emption money had run out and the amount not deposited in time, the pre‑emption decree became void and the pre‑emption suit stood automatically dismissed on account of the provisions of Order XX, Rule 14, C.P.C. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby. AA./M‑665/S Petition dismissed.