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 for Special Leave to Appeal No. 835 of 1979, decided on 17th March, 1986.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 19‑12‑1978 passed in C.M. No. 6460lC of 1976 in R.S.A. No. 114 of 1964.)
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑High Court dismissing, on ground of default, appeal filed by petitioner for reducing pre‑emption money‑‑Application for restoration of appeal also dismissed by High Court‑‑Petitioner willing to deposit pre‑emption money High Court, held, was competent on disposal of appeal in pre‑emption matter to grant reasonable time to pre‑emptor to make deposit of pre‑emption money‑‑Petition dismissed in circumstances.
Ch. A. Waheed Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court with Hameed Aslam Qureshi Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 17th March, 1986.
Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 19‑12‑1978 of the Lahore High Court; whereby the Court refused to restore plaintiff (pre‑emptor's) appeal filed in a matter of pre‑emption.
2. Khadim Hussain (petitioner) a minor plaintiff (pre‑emptor) having succeeded in a pre‑emption suit challenged in appeal the price to be paid for the land. It was dismissed by the District Court. He then filed an R . S. A. in the High Court for the same purpose, namely, the reduction of the pre‑emption money. It was admitted to regular hearing. But subsequently on the death of Nemat Ali who had acted as next friend of the minor petitioner, the appeal was dismissed in default. An application (Civil Miscellaneous No. 6460‑C of 1976) made for the restoration of the appeal having been dismissed by a learned Single Judge, leave to appeal has now been sought.
3. Learned counsel, after some arguments, stated that the petitioner is willing to pay the original pre‑emption amount fixed by the trial Court, namely, Rs. 14,500 and is no more raising any contest in so far as that real subject‑matter is concerned.
4. If that is so, an application should be made before the High Court seeking permission and time to deposit the pre‑emption money.
5. Learned counsel stated that the time spent in this Court might be treated as a bar for making such an application.
6. The petition for leave to appeal was filed bona fide and has been pursued with diligence, therefore, application in that behalf can also be made before the High Court. As to the competency of the High Court on disposal of appeal in a pre‑emption matter to grant reasonable time to the pre‑emptor to make the deposit of the pre‑emption money, it has been held in a number of judgments of this Court that the High Court has such power. This view has been reiterated in a recent judgment of this Court in Bhai Khan v. Allah Bakhsh Civil Appeal No. 864 of 1984, dismissed on 5‑3‑1986.
7. With these observations we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal which is accordingly declined.
M. Y. H. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer