Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 369 of 1977, decided on 27th October, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 21‑3‑1977 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Rev. Nos. 239/77).

‑‑ S. 15‑Suit for pre‑emption ‑Decree passed in favour of pre‑emptor with consent of vendor‑‑‑Pre‑emptor unable to execute decree on account of an act of God‑Receiver appointed to safeguard his interest‑Order passed by Courts below found to be fair and equitable‑Held, case not a fit one for granting leave to appeal in exercise of Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction ‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).

Perwaiz Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioner.

Saeedur Rehman Farruk, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Aslam. Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

‑‑A consent decree for possession by pre‑emption was passed in favour of the respondent on 6‑11‑1973 and the said respondent deposited the sum of Rs. 88,000 in Court as price of the suit land. Before the decree could, however, be executed, the case file was damaged by the floods and the decree sheet became indecipherable. Consequently, the file was ordered to be reconstructed. But as this was taking an enormous time, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, on the respondent's application, appointed Naib‑Tehsildar, Ferozewala as a receiver to take into custody 15 killas of land out of the suit land and the crops standing thereon and directed him to manage the land and deposit the proceeds of the crops in Court pending decision of the suit, vide his order dated 3‑4‑1976.

Dissatisfied with this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, which was dismissed on 4‑3‑1977. He then filed a revision petition before the Lahore High Court, which too was dismissed on 21‑3‑1977 by an elaborate order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner we are clearly of the view that this is not at all a fit case in exercise of this Court's discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal. The decree has been passed in favour of the respondent with the consent of the petitioner. He has deposited the pre‑emption amount in Court and has been unable to execute the decree on account of an act of God and while the necessary steps are being taken to enable the respondent to do so, the receiver has been appointed to safeguard, his interest. The order passed is a fair and equitable one and no interference therein is called for.

The petition must fail and is dismissed hereby.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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