1987 PLP 1481 (SCMR)
ALI ASGHAR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1481 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ALI ASGHAR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1481 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1481 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1481 (SCMR) (ALI ASGHAR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rahman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah‑ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th June, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 17‑2‑1980 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No. 193 of 1980). ‑‑‑O. XX, R. 14‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973),Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption decree granted in favour of petitioners on payment of specified amount, failing which suit was to stand dismissed Petitioners filing appeal against sale price wherein Appellate Court extended time for deposit of sale price‑‑Petitioner deposited sale price but withdrew appeal on learning that memorandum of appeal was deficiently stamped‑‑Application for execution of decree by petitioners was dismissed on ground that sale price had not been deposited within specified date‑‑Order of dismissal of execution application was upheld in appeal and again by High Court in revision‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider plea of petitioners that sale price having been deposited within period extended by District Judge, there was no non‑compliance of the terms of decree, as such executing Court ought not to have declined execution of decree.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioners filed a suit for pre‑emption. It was decreed on 21‑10‑1978 and they were directed to deposit the purchase money before 19‑11‑1978. In the event of their failure to make the deposit their suit was to stand dismissed. They preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge challenging the amount which they had been called upon to deposit. On 18‑11‑1978 the Additional District Judge admitted the appeal to regular hearing and adjourned it to 17‑12‑1978. He also extended the time for the deposit of the purchase money till that date. On 17‑12‑1978 he again adjourned the hearing and further directed that the petitioners might not deposit the purchase money till further orders. Nevertheless, the petitioners deposited the purchase money on 18‑12‑1978.
2. When the appeal came up for hearing it was discovered that the memorandum had been deficiently stamped. Instead of making up the deficiency the petitioners withdrew the appeal. Subsequently, they filed an application for execution of the decree. An objection was raised on behalf of the vendees that as the petitioners had not deposited the purchase money by the date specified in the decree of the trial Court their suit stood dismissed in terms thereof and as such the question of its execution did not arise. This objection found favour with the Executing Court and it dismissed the application for execution. Its order was upheld by the Additional District Judge in appeal and by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. It is contended in support of this petition that after the petitioners had deposited the purchase money within the period extended by the District Judge it could not be said that there had been a non‑compliance of the terms of the decree; as such the executing Court ought not to have declined to execute the decree. This contention needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.2000/‑. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. A.A./A‑64/S Leave granted.