Decree in pre-emption suit

2022 SCMR 958 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

O. XX, R. 14Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art.181Decree in pre-emption suitExecution application/petition, filing ofLimitation period, commencement of

Principles relating to commencement of limitation period for filing an execution application/ petition in respect of a decree in a pre-emption suit stated.

2019 MLD 1876 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. XX, R. 14Decree in pre-emption suitImplementation ofTransaction pendente liteEffect

Petition for implementation of decree passed in pre-emption suit was moved which was accepted by the District Collector but Member Board of Revenue dismissed the same on the ground of limitation

Validity

Decree passed in favour of petitioners had attained finality

Revenue authorities were bound to sanction mutation on the basis of decree passed by the Civil Court

Attestation of mutation could not be refused on the ground that decree was not put into execution within the prescribed period of limitation

Board of Revenue had acted on legal misconception in assuming that implementation of decree of Civil Court could be declined by a revenue officer on the plea that execution had become barred by time

Where Court had passed decree subject to payment of sale price within time frame stipulated in the judgment then on deposit of pre-emption money the ownership of land would vest in the pre-emptor

Title of property on deposit of decretal amount had vested in favour of petitioners

Revenue functionaries were to take steps to record entries in the revenue record in accordance with decree of Civil Court

No fresh direction of Court was required for execution of decree passed in pre-emption suit

Revenue authorities were required to give effect to the decree of Civil Court and were not expected to adjudicate upon any question of title

Implementation of decree was unnecessarily delayed in seeking permission to review intervening mutations without appreciating that rule of lis pendens would take care of the same

Any transaction made pendente lite during suit till the decree or thereafter in violation of decree would be deemed in law to be void ab initio

Transfer pendente lite was bound by the decree and could not claim any title of his own even on the plea of alleged bona fide purchase

District Collector had proceeded to act in accordance with law by attesting mutation in favour of petitioners

Impugned order passed by the Member Board of Revenue was illegal and without lawful authority which was set aside and that of District Collector restored

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2017 YLR 761 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

O. XX, R. 14Decree in pre-emption suitNon-deposit of sale consideration within time fixed by the Trial CourtEffect

Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the plaintiff to deposit the consideration amount along with other expenses within a period of one month otherwise suit would be deemed to have been dismissed

Appellate Court maintained the judgment of Trial Court and directed the pre-emptor to deposit the decretal amount as was calculated by the Trial Court within specified time

Contention of vendee was that pre-emptor had not deposited the decretal amount within stipulated period and suit stood dismissed by operation of law

Validity

Trial Court had directed the pre-emptor to deposit the consideration amount within one month

Time granted by the Trial Court expired on 30-01-2012 during which no appeal was filed nor extension of time was sought

Pre-emptor was negligent in pursuing his case and had not complied with the judgment of Trial Court

Last date for depositing of consideration amount was 30-01-2012 and pre-emptor was bound to file appeal before this date

Question of competence of appeal was legal point which could be raised and determined in second appeal

No application had been filed by the pre-emptor for condonation of delay

Suit stood dismissed on 30-01-2012 for not complying with the direction of the Trial Court

Filing of appeal on 06-02-2012 was of no use and suspension of judgment at that time was also of no helpful to the pre-emptor

Judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2017 MLD 682 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

O. XX, R. 14Decree in pre-emption suitNon-deposit of decretal amount within time fixed by the CourtEffect

Trial Court decreed the suit subject to payment of sale consideration along with expenses of sale deed within a period of one month failing which suit would be deemed to have been dismissed

Appellate Court remanded the case to the Trial Court for decision afresh

Contention of vendee was that decree was conditional but no decretal amount was deposited within the time fixed by the Trial Court and appeal filed on behalf of pre-emptor stood automatically dismissed for non-depositing of amount

Validity

No application for extension of time for deposit of decretal amount was filed by the pre-emptor

Civil law was the law of omission and commission

If an act was not performed in due course of time or direction of the Court was not complied with, defaulter had to suffer

Right of pre-emption was considered a draw back on the freedom of contract

Courts had to interpret the provisions of pre-emption law strictly

Pre-emptor remained negligent till final disposal of the appeal

Non-extension of time for deposit of sale consideration would result into dismissal of suit

No valid appeal existed before the Appellate Court on which impugned order had been passed

Time fixed in the case could be extended without any application or even on oral request of the parties

Had the matter brought into the notice of the Court through a written application, time might have been extended but no such application was moved by the pre-emptor till disposal of appeal

Suit for pre-emptor would be deemed to have been dismissed in circumstances

Reasons with regard to remand of case by the Appellate Court were erroneous

Appellate Court could fix time for deposit of decretal amount while disposing of main appeal if judgment of Trial Court remained suspended

Remand of case was not desirable as parties had led evidence and there was sufficient material for disposal of appeal even otherwise

Case could not be remanded for filing lacunas of parties

Judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were vacated

Suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed for non-compliance of judgment of Trial Court

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2016 CLC 1547 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

O. XX, R. 14 & Ss. 148 & 107Decree in pre-emption suitDecretal amount, deposit ofExtension of time by the Appellate CourtScope

Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the decree holder to deposit the decretal amount along with costs of sale deed within a period of one month otherwise suit would be deemed as dismissed

Decree holder filed appeal and interim injunction was issued

Appeal was dismissed and Appellate Court granted two months' time for deposit of decretal amount

Validity

Right of appeal was a statutory right of a party

Powers vested in the courts of original jurisdiction were also available with the appellate courts

Any period fixed or granted by the court for doing any act prescribed or allowed by Civil Procedure Code, 1908 including the period for depositing decretal amount could be enlarged from time to time

Application for extension of time could be entertained by the appellate court after expiry of time allowed by the trial court

Courts below had rightly passed the orders and no illegality had been committed

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 YLRN 187 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. XX, R. 14Decree in pre-emption suitExecution ofScope

Application for implementation of pre-emption decree was moved but same remained unexecuted and thereafter suit for declaration was instituted which was dismissed by the Trial Court but same was decreed by the Appellate Court

Validity

Decretal amount under the decree had been deposited by the plaintiffs

Decree granted by the civil court in pre-emption suit was not an ordinary decree

Right in the suit property would be conferred upon the decree-holder at the time when he deposited the sale price under the orders of court

Decree-holders would become an absolute owner of suit property after deposit of decretal amount in the court

Revenue authorities were bound to implement the decree in the revenue record

No question with regard to delay in filing of an application to implement the decree in the revenue record before the revenue authority would arise in circumstances

Order of refusal for implementation of decree by the Collector was wrong

Suit having been rightly filed, appellate court was justified to decree the same

Decree-holder of a pre-emption suit after deposit of decretal amount did not need to file execution petition

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 PLD 6 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 6Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.27Decree in pre-emption suitSale of ancestral land by plaintiff to arrange decretal amountAppeal against decree, pendency ofProduction of additional evidence, application for

Defendant sought to place on record sale-deed in respect of ancestral land sold by plaintiff in order to show that he had no money to make payment of decretal amount, thus, he had filed suit only for personal hostility

Validity

No provision existed in law to bar plaintiff from selling his another land to deposit decretal amount

Said sale deed was not required by court for pronouncing judgment or any other substantial cause

Such application did not fulfil requirements of O.XLI, R.27, C.P.C. which was dismissed in circumstances.