P L D 2006 Supreme Court 140 (PLP)
SHUJAT ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RIASAT and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2006 Supreme Court 140 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | SHUJAT ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RIASAT and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2006 Supreme Court 140 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2006 Supreme Court 140 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2006 Supreme Court 140 (PLP) (SHUJAT ALI — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD RIASAT and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Asmat Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.148 & O.XX, R.14
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185 (3)
Conditional decree
Suit of pre-emptor was decreed by High Court and the Court directed him to deposit the pre-emption money within a specified period
Pre-emptor, instead of depositing the amount, filed application under S.148, C.P.C. for extension of time to deposit the amount
High Court dismissed the application and dismissed the suit of pre-emptor
Once having passed conditional decree and suit having stood automatically dismissed for non-deposit of pre-emption money, the Court decreeing the suit had become functus officio--High Court could not have extended the time not only because non-compliance had operated into automatic dismissal of suit but also because a valuable right had accrued to the vendee
Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by High Court
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--Shujat Ali seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 8-6-2004 whereby his C.M.A. No.495-C of 2004 ' was dismissed along with Civil Revision No.541 of 2003, dismissing his suit for pre-emption on 30-3-2004 on account of non-deposit of pre-emption money.
2. The petitioner was granted a pre-emption decree by a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench on 30-3-2004 subject to deposit of Rs.4,50,000 minus Zar-e-Soyam, within a period of two months. The pre-emptor failed to deposit such pre-emption money and, in turn filed an application under section 148, C.P.C. for enlargement of tune to deposit the pre-emption money. Such application was rejected.
3. It is but obvious that once having passed a conditional decree and the suit having stood automatically dismissed for non-deposit of pre-emption money, the Court decreeing the suit had become functus officio. It is also obvious that the Court could not have extended the time not only because non-compliance had operated into automatic dismissal of suit but also because a very valuable right had thereby accrued to the vendee, now a decree-holder. The impugned order cannot be taken any exception to. There being no force in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused. M.H./S-3/S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.