Find a Lawyer

Regular Second Appeal No. 910 of 1979, decided on 25th April, 1981.

‑‑ S. 22‑Pre‑emption‑Zar‑e‑Panjum not deposited and court‑fee not paid in time‑Fraud alleged to have been played on appellant by his first counsel who allegedly kept with him Zar‑e‑Panjum given by appellant and applied for extension in time‑No reason given for appellant's one year's silence qua said fraud‑Held . Looking at all circumstances appellant a party to whatever counsel had done on his behalf‑Petitioner cannot escape legal consequences of failure to deposit Zar‑e‑Panjum in time.

‑‑‑ S. 22‑Pre‑emption ‑Zar‑e‑Panjum‑--Plaintiff not depositing Zar‑e‑Panjum in time but making application for extension of time‑Does so at his own risk‑Plaintiff's application to allow exten sion of time to deposit Zar‑e‑Panjum not decided before time run out‑Plaintiff, held, cannot escape legal consequences of uon-deposit of jar‑e‑Panjum on that score alone and plead inability to deposit amount on account of act of Court.

Elahi Bakhsh and others v. Mst. Sardar Begum P L D 1967 B 1 5 ; Saeed Ahmad and others v. Karam Singh and another P L D 1949 Lah. 380 and Gharib Shah v. Alam Shah P L D 195lr, Pesh. 26 ref.

‑‑ S. 28, Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 149 read with O. VII, r. 11‑Court‑fec‑ Deficiency, making up of‑Limitation‑‑Appellant not making up deficiency in court‑fee within period of limitation Appellant not showing sufficient cause for‑his default‑Valuable right having ac6cued to respondent due to running out of period of limitation such right, held, cannot be taken away from respondent.

Mst. Walayal Khatun v. Khalil Khan and another P L D 1979 S C 821 re1.

Sh. Muhammad Naseem for Appellants.

Allah Wasaya Malik for Respondents.

Dates of bearing :16th February ; 16th and 24th March, 1981.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.