1995 PLP 1038 (MLD)
DOST MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUZAFFAR KHAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1038 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Raja Abdul Aziz Bhatti, J |
| Parties | DOST MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUZAFFAR KHAN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1038 (MLD)?
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 1995 PLP 1038 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Raja Abdul Aziz Bhatti, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1038 (MLD) (DOST MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUZAFFAR KHAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maulvi Anwar‑ul‑Haq for Petitioners.
- Ajmal Kamal Mirza for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.24(1)‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption ‑‑‑Deposit of 1/3rd sale price by pre -emptor ‑‑‑Trial Court had ordered deposit of requisite amount before specified date‑‑‑Plaintiff had deposited specified amount within stipulated period‑‑ Court record having become damaged during flood, order of Court had become illegible‑‑‑High Court with assistance of counsel of parties with the help of special glass, had found that plaintiff had in fact, deposited specified amount in Court as per direction of Court before the specified date‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit for pre‑emption, thus, could not be dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.24(1)‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption ‑‑‑Deposit of 1/3rd sale price by pre -emptor ‑‑‑Trial Court had ordered deposit of requisite amount before specified date‑‑‑Plaintiff had deposited specified amount within stipulated period‑‑ Court record having become damaged during flood, order of Court had become illegible‑‑‑High Court with assistance of counsel of parties with the help of special glass, had found that plaintiff had in fact, deposited specified amount in Court as per direction of Court before the specified date‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit for pre‑emption, thus, could not be dismissed. Maulvi Anwar‑ul‑Haq for Petitioners. Ajmal Kamal Mirza for Respondent. As the brief and simple point involved in this case is that as to whether the plaintiff/respondent failed to deposit the actual 1/3rd of the sale price in accordance with law. On 16‑7‑1992 the learned Civil Judge passed order to the effect that the plaintiff/respondent shall deposit Rs. 50,000 as 1/3rd of the sale price before the next date of hearing i.e. 17‑9‑1992, the order is on the record.
2. I have seen the order‑sheet and gone through the order which in fact is not fully legible. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that the order has become illegible for the reasons, during flood the Court record was damaged. With the assistance of both the learned counsel by applying special glass, it has been found that the learned trial Court specified amount of Rs. 50,000 as 1/3rd of the sale price and direction was given to deposit this amount. Unfortunately both the lower Courts have failed to examine this order properly. Since the plaintiff/respondent deposited Rs. 50,000 within the specified period, on the direction of the Court, hence plaintiff/respondent's suit cannot be dismissed as he is not to be penalized for the order/action taken by the Court
3. With the aforesaid observation, the impugned order dated 13‑5‑1993 passed by Additional District Judge, Jhelum is upheld and Civil Revision is dismissed. AA. /D‑45./L. Revision dismissed.