Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition No. 1021 of 1975, decided on 13th February, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 23rd October, 1975 passed in Cr. No.120/75/BWP).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S. 22‑‑Deposit of Zar‑e‑Panjum‑‑ Extension of time by appellate Court impugned‑‑Plea that extension of time in favour of pre‑emptor could not be grained unless sufficient and reasonable cause was shown, repelled‑‑Question of extension of time for deposit of Zar‑e‑Panjum was a matter within discretion of trial Court and exercise of such discretion was open to correction by appellate Court‑‑There being no compelling reason to hold that discretion vesting in Court had not been properly exercised by District Judge and no question of law of any importance arising, Supreme Court declined to interfere‑‑Petition dismissed.
Hadayat Ullah v. Murad Ali Khan P L D 1972 S C 69; Abdul Wahid v. Ibrahim P L D 1966 B.J. 8; Muhammad Zaman Khan v. Ditta P L D 1967 Lah. 1068 and Niaz Ali v. Ibrahim P L D 1967 Lah. 1057 ref.
A.H. Najafi, Advocate Supreme Court and Wajid Hussain Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
‑This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated the 23rd of October, 1975 of the Lahore High Court, by which a revision petition filed by present petitioners, was dismissed.
The respondent Khurshid Akhtar had filed a suit for pre‑empting the sale of agricultural land in favour of the present petitioners by one Muhammad Tariq. On the 18th of March, 1975, the learned Civil Judge directed the respondent to deposit 1/5th of the sale price before the 9th of April, 1975. Instead of depositing the required sum on that day, the respondent moved an application before the District Court; in the absence of the trial Judge, praying that owing to some misunderstanding on her part, she had not been able to deposit 1/5th of the sale price before the appointed date, and, accordingly, an extension of time may be granted. She expressed her willingness to deposit the amount on that very day, namely, the 9th of April, 1975. This application was forwarded to the trial Court by the learned District Judge, Bahawalnai;ar, and was dismissed on the 30th April, 1975. As a result, the respondent's plaint was rejected. The learned Civil Judge observed that there could be no question of any misunderstanding as the purport of his order was found recorded on the brief of the learned Advocate for tire respondent. Aggrieved by this order of the trial Court, the respondent filed an appeal, which was accepted by the learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar, by his order, dated the 8th of September, 1975. He observed that the plaintiff was prepared to deposit Zar‑e‑Panjum on 9‑4‑1975; and that she could not deposit the money before the due date owing to a bona fide mistake. Relying upon Hadayat Ullah v. Murad Ali Khan P L D 1972 S C 69, he observed that the Court was competent to extend time for this purpose. After extending the time for the deposit of the money, the learned District Judge remanded the case to the trial Court for decision on merits.
The present petitioners filed a revision petition, against this order, which was, however, dismissed by a learned Judge on the ground that discretion had been properly exercised by the lower appellate Court in favour of the plaintiff, as she was prepared to deposit the Zar‑e‑Panjum on the 9th of April, 1975.
Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that the right of pre‑emption is a predatory right, and, therefore, the extension of time in favour of the pre‑emptor could not be granted automatically, and it could be done only if sufficient and reasonable cause was shown for the same which was not the case here. Mr. Najafi submits that the direction given by the trial Court regarding the deposit of the Zar‑e Panjum before the 9th of April, 1975, was very clear, and there could, therefore, be no question of any misconception or misunderstanding on the part of the plaintiff or her counsel. The learned counsel contends that in these circumstances, the order of the trial Court should have been maintained by the learned District Judge and the High Court. In support of these submissions Mr. Najafi has referred us to Abdul Wahid v. Ibrahim P L D 1966 B.J. 8, Muhammad Zaman Khan v. Ditta P L D 1967 Lah. 1068 and Niaz Ali v. Ibrahim P L D 1967 Lah. 1057.
We regret we see no merits in these submissions. The question of extension of time for the deposit of Zar‑e‑Panjum was a matter within the discretion of the trial Court, and the exercise of this discretion was open to correction by the appellate Court. Although the learned trial Judge formed the view that there was no question of any misunderstanding on the part of the plaintiff as to the date before which the money had to be deposited, yet the learned District Judge, on the same material, took a contrary view, which he was entitled to do. The learned Judge in the High Court has upheld the view taken by the learned District Judge in appeal. In these circumstances, no question of law of any importance arises, and we see no compelling reason to hold that the discretion vesting in the 'Court has not been properly exercised by the learned District Judge. Accordingly, no justification is made out for our interference in the matter.
The present petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.
M . I . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer