Find a Lawyer

MALIK TARIQ MAHMOOD versus GHULAM AHMED

Section 24, First Provisions - General Clause Act (VII of 1956), Section 8 ?? Pre-Occupation Suit Arms Sumer, - Scope of Court Required to Submit Gold Sums within a Term from Umpire Can From thirty days to thirty days but in no case was the court left with any power / discretion to allow the forebears to submit more than 30 days' emoluments - in section 24 of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1991 For the first time, a certain ban! At the disposal of the court, it was to prevent the expulsion of Zazarim from a period exceeding 30 days (Sajjad Ali Shah, J) Accountant from the date of filing the case - Section 24 (2) of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act, 1991 Subsequently, penalties for non-submission of nutrition suit within 30 days were presented. [P678] A. Mohammad Ramadan v. Mohammad Bakhsh PLD 2012 SC 764; Hassan Nawaz Khan vs. Ghulam Akbar PLD 2013 SC 489 And Raja V Tanveer Riaz PLD 2014 SC 466 Ref

P L D 2017 Supreme Court 674

Present: Sh. Azmat Saeed and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ

Malik TARIQ MAHMOOD and others—Appellants

versus

GHULAM AHMED and others—Respondents

Civil Appeal No.864 of 2012, decided on 5th June, 2017.

(Against the order dated 11.7.2011 passed by the Lahore High Court in W.P. No. 20722 of 2010)

(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)—

----S. 24, first proviso—General Clauses Act ( VI of 1956), S. 8—Suit for pre-emption—Zar-e-soim, deposit of—Scope—Court may require the pre-emptor to deposit the zar-e-soim within a period ranging from one day to thirty days but under no circumstances the Court was left with any power/discretion to allow the pre-emptor to make deposit of the zar-e-soim beyond the period of 30 days—First proviso to S. 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, placed a specific embargo  restriction on the powers of the Court from extending the time for deposit of zar-e-soim beyond the period of 30 days which was to be (Sajjad Ali Shah, J) reckoned from the date of filing the suit—Section 24(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 provided penal consequences for not depositing the zar-e-soim within a period of 30 days by dismissal of the preemption suit. [p. 678] A Muhammad Ramzan v. Muhammad Bakhsh PLD 2012 SC 764; Hasnain Nawaz Khan v. Ghulam Akbar PLD 2013 SC 489 and Raja v. Tanveer Riaz PLD 2014 SC 466 ref.

(b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)—

—S. 24, first proviso—Suit for pre-emption—Zar-e-soim, deposit of— Commencement of time for depositing zar-e-soim—Scope—Period of 30 days for depositing zar-e-soim would commence from the date the presentation of plaint was accepted by the court or the officer so appointed by the court, [p. 679] B

(c) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)—

—S. 24, first proviso—Suit for pre-emption—Zar-e-soim, deposit of— Scope—Omission on part of the Court in timely directing the pre-emptor to deposit the zar-e-soim within 30 days—Effect—Requirement of depositing zar-e-soim was subject to the order of the Court, therefore, in cases where Court omitted to pass an order or .the matter was not placed in Court within the time frame as provided in the first proviso to S.24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 then the pre-emptor could not be blamed and penalized for such non-deposit (within 30 days) as the deposit of zar-e-soim was subject to the order of the Court—In such cases, however, upon realizing its mistake the Court, while granting time for payment of zar-e-soim, would not be exercising power under the first proviso to S.24, which empowered the Court to grant any period of time up to 30 days in one go or by extending the period from time to time up to the maximum of 30 days, but would remedy its fault under the principle "actus curiae neminem gravabit"

i.e. an act of the Court shall prejudice no man, therefore, once a reasonable time was granted for deposit of zar-e-soim to remedy its mistake, the Court shall have no power to extend and grant further time—Even otherwise, time for deposit of zar-e-soim was not granted to the pre-emptor to generate fund from his resources as the pre-emptor must have in his pocket one-third of the sale price of the property sought to be pre-empted while approaching the Court, [p. 679] C

Nabi Ahmed v. Muhammad Arshad 2008 SCMR 1685 ref.

Syed Najihul Hassan Kazmi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehar Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.

Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Sindhu, Advocate Supreme Court and in cases where Court omits to pass order or the matter is not placed in Court within the time frame as provided in the first proviso then the pre-emptor cannot be blamed and penalized for such non-deposit as the deposit of zar-e-soim is subject to the order of the Court and this Court in such circumstances by upholding the principle that an act of Court shall prejudice no man, has condoned such default. Reference can be made to the case of Nabi Ahmed v. Muhammad Arshad (2008 SCMR 1685). However, in such cases upon realizing its mistake the Court while granting time for payment of zar-e-soim would not be exercising power under the first proviso which empowers the Court to grant any period of time upto 30 days in one go or by extending the period from time to time upto the maximum of 30 days but would remedy its fault under the age old principle "Actus curiae neminem gravabit" i.e. an act of the Court shall prejudice no man, therefore, once a reasonable time is granted for deposit of zar-e-soim to remedy its mistake, the Court shall have no power to extend and grant further time. Even otherwise, time for deposit of zar-e-soim is not granted to the pre-emptor to generate fund from his resources as the pre-emptor must have in his pocket one-third of the sale price of the property sought to be pre-empted while approaching the Court.

11. In the instant case, the plaint was presented on 11.8.2006 and since the pre-emptor was seeking interim relief, therefore, the case on that very day was presented before the presiding officer who directed issuance of notices to the defendant for 2.9.2006, however, somehow the other omitted to pass an order directing the pre-emptor to deposit the zar-e-soim. It appears that the suit was fÓrm;ally registered on 2.9.2006 when it was fixed in Court for hearing. The Court upon realizing its mistake of not passing an order for depositing the zar-e-soim on the first date of hearing directed the deposit of zar-e-soim by 11.9.2006 i.e. exactly within the unexpired period of 30 days from the date of filing of the suit. It appears that the respondent on 7.9.2006 two days before the expiry of statutory period of 30 days moved an application seeking extension in time at his own risk for the deposit of zar-e-soim which application was placed in Court on 11.9.2006 and in the absence of , appellant/vendee the Court extended the time for deposit till 16.9.2006. This extension of time for deposit of zar-e-soim after the expiry of statutory period of 30 days in the circumstances could not be sustained.

12. These are the reasons for the short order of even date whereby we, by allowing this appeal, had dismissed the suit.

when you need a advocate from Domeli lawyer