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. 421‑R of 1985, decided on 14th December, 1985.
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 30‑9‑1985 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in W.P. No. 245 of 1985).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S. 21‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 148‑‑Suit for pre‑emption decreed‑ Purchase price ordered to be deposited' within 45 days (before 10‑2‑1984)‑‑10th February being close holiday, amount deposited on i1‑2‑1984‑‑Trial Court declined to extend time as prescribed date clearly stipulated as "before 10‑2‑1984"‑‑Order upheld up to High Court‑‑Supreme Court, held, that words "before 10‑2‑1984" were inconsistent with earlier order i.e. "within 45 days" which included 10th February and that day being close holiday, petitioner could get benefit of it by depositing amount on next working day‑‑However, suit having been dismissed by subsequent order which attained finality, success of petition, further held, would be futile‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Mian Inamul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing: 14th December, 1985.
.‑‑The petitioners, who are tenants, succeeded in a suit filed for pre‑empting the possession of 85 Kanals and 3 Marlas of land in village Thatti Seyedan, Tehsil Pindigheb, District Attock. The decree, however, provided for the payment of purchase price as under:‑‑
"Within 45 days" (before 10‑2‑1984)
They however, deposited the purchase price on 11th of February, 1984, as 10th of February, being a Friday, was a close holiday. Thereafter on 20th of May, 1984, they moved an application before the trial Court in which it was prayed that the last date be read as under:‑
"Before 10th of February, 1984" be corrected to read "11th February, 1984";
As the last day of limitation expired on 10th of February, 1984, which was a Friday, the trial Court declined to accede to this request as in its opinion the prescribed date clearly stipulated "as before 10‑2‑1984", which could not be extended. This order was upheld in revision and so also by a Member, Board of Revenue, as in his view there was no ambiguity in the order and for that reason it was not liable to be corrected.
In a writ petition brought to impugn this order, a learned Judge in the High Court laid emphasis on the words namely, "before 10th of February, 1984", and held that the last day by which the petitioners could deposit the purchase price was 9th of February, 1984 and not 10th of February, 1984 and that the petitioners not having done so failed to comply with the orders of the trial Court. The learned Judge further held that the extension of time under section 148, C.P.C. was discretionary and that the discretion having been exercised justly there was no scope for interference.
To us it appears that the words in bracket, i.e., "before 10th of February, 1984" are inconsistent with the earlier words namely, "within 45 days" as the words within also includes the last day, that is, "10th of February, 1984". And as that day was a holiday, the petitioner could get the benefit of it by depositing the amount on the next working day. Be that as it may, as the suit was dismissed by a subsequent order which was not challenged in appeal, the success o this petition, in our view, will be futile as that order now holds the field.
Accordingly, the petition 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