1990 PLP 540 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and another‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH DITTA and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 540 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and another‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH DITTA and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 540 (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 1990 PLP 540 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 540 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and another‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH DITTA and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th April, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 9‑11‑1980 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in F.A.O. No. 197 of 1975). ‑‑‑S.22‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Non‑deposit of Zar‑e Panjum within time ‑‑‑Pre‑emptors' plaint rejected by Trial Court‑‑‑Plaintiffs' appeal succeeded on the ground that their application for extension of time for the deposit of Zar‑e‑Panjum was not disposed of by the Trial Court before the target date and thus they were deprived of the opportunity to make up the deposit within specified time‑‑‑High Court dismissed vendees' appeal against order passed by First Appellate Court ‑‑‑Held, approach of First Appellate Court and of the High Court regarding extension of time under S.22 of Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913, was based on sound reasoning and was thus unexceptionable‑‑‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th April, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by vendees/defendants side from Judgment dated 9‑11‑1980 of the Lahore High Court whereby petitioners' first Appeal against order passed by the lower appellate Court under section 22 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act condoning the delay in the deposit of Zare Panjam by the respondents/plaintiffs/ pre‑emptors side, was dismissed.
2. The pre‑emptors' plaint was rejected for non‑deposit of the Zare Panjum within time. Their appeal before the District Court succeeded on the ground that their application for extension of time for the deposit of Zare Panjum was not disposed of by the trial Court before the target date and thus they were deprived of the opportunity to make the deposit within the specified time. The respondents' plea having been accepted, the order of the trial Court was set aside and the case was remanded for fresh decision on merits.
3. It is an old matter. There was no stay order by this Court. A possibility that the suit has already been decided, cannot be ruled out. In case a decree has been passed in favour of the respondents‑side, it should not now be set aside merely on the ground that the First Appellate Court should not have condoned the delay in the deposit of the Zare Panjum.
4. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that the approach of the learned first appellate Court and of the High Court regarding extension of time under section 22 of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act is based on sound reasoning and is thus unexceptionable. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. A.A./M‑967/S Petition dismissed.