Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 833 of 1984, decided on 8th October, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court Lahore, dated 17‑7‑1984 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1196‑D of 1984).

‑‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), Ss. 4 & 15‑‑Failure to deposit Zar‑e‑Saman within stipulated time‑‑Now plea Petitioner raising a totally fresh plea before Supreme Court‑‑Other submissions made in support of petition already rejected by High Court on principles laid down by Supreme Court on the subject‑‑Petitioner, held, could not be permitted to raise a totally fresh plea before Supreme Court‑ Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan P L D 1984 S C 289 ref.

Sh. Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mehdi Mehtab, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioners.

Ch. Mahmood Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record and C.M. Latif Rawan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing: 8th October, 1984.

.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 17‑7‑1984 dismissing a revision application filed by petitioner against the judgment of District Judge, Sargodha dated 27‑7‑1984. By that judgment learned District Judge dismissed petitioner's appeal and thereby confirmed the judgment of Civil Judge, Bhalwal dated 10‑12‑1980 whereby a suit for pre‑emption of land filed by respondent was decreed on payment of Rs.20,000.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree in respondent's favour was passed with the stipulation that he will make the payment of Zar‑e‑Saman Rs.20,000, till 31‑1‑1981, after deducting Zar‑e‑Punjam, if any, deposited by him, and in case he failed to do so, the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Since respondent did not deposit the Zar‑e‑Saman within the stipulated time, the suit ought to have been treated as having been dismissed.

This plea was not raised before the High Court, and in fact the only plea that was urged by the learned counsel appearing before the High Court in support of the revision application was that despite the order of the learned trial Court the respondent had not made up the deficiency in court‑fee paid on the plaint and, therefore, the plaint merited rejection. This plea was rejected for the following reasons:

"The learned counsel conceded that the learned trial Court had not passed any order directing the respondent to pay any specific amount of court‑fee. In these circumstances, in view of the rule laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan P L D 1984 S C 289, the plaint could not have been rejected. There being no dispute regarding superiority of the pre‑emptive right of the respondent and sale consideration, this petition is without any force and is consequently dismissed in limine."

The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a totally fresh plea before this Court and the other submission made by learned counsel in support of this petition was in fact the only plea urged before the High Court which has been rightly rejected on the principles laid down by this Court in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan P L D 1984 SC 289.

There is, therefore, no merit in this petition and it is dismissed

M.Y.H 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.