Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM RASOOL VS Respondent: MANZOOR
1988 S C M R 1569
1988 S C M R 1569
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
GHULAM RASOOL‑‑Petitioner
versus
Mst. MANZOOR and 3 others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.657 of 1983, decided on 29th May, 1988.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7‑3‑1983 in C.R.No.402 of 1982).
(a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑S.25‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Finding of fact, interference with‑‑Suit for pre‑emption decreed‑ ‑Pre‑emptor disputing price of the land‑‑Finding of fact against petitioner's claim vis‑a‑vis price not suffering from any infirmity, legal or otherwise, which might justify interference‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
(b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑S.21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Suit for pre emption‑‑Default in payment of price‑‑Consequence of Successful pre‑emptor disputing price of land fixed by Court, his revision petition failed‑‑High Court's direction to deposit price within one month failing which suit would stand dismissed, not complied with‑‑Further extension of time was refused‑‑Petitioner would fail to execute decree even on payment of price determined by lower Courts‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Tai Muhammad Langa, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
M.A.Qureshi, Advocate‑or.‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 29th. May, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This is a pre‑emptor's' leave to appeal petition. He had obtained a decree and has in that behalf remained successful. The dispute now is with regard to the price of the land.
After having heard the learned counsel on this question, we are satisfied that the finding of fact against petitioner's claim vis- -vis price does not suffer from any infirmity legal or otherwise which might justify our interference. This petition, therefore, has to be dismissed so far as the merits are concerned. Even otherwise too the petitioner/ pre‑emptor would now fail to execute the decree even on payment of price determined by the learned lower Courts. The learned Judge in the High Court had while dismissing the Civil Revision of the petitioner on 7‑3‑1983 directed for the remaining price after deducting Zar‑i‑Punjam, to be deposited within one month from the date of the judgment of the High Court, "failing which his suit shall stand dismissed."
The petitioner sought further time from this Court for the deposit of remaining price as ordered by the High Court. The request was refused on 21‑4‑1983 and the Civil Miscellaneous Application No‑207 of 1983 in this petition, was dismissed. That being so, there is no justification for granting any further time for the deposit of the amount. The petitioner also failed to seek reconsideration of the order passed by this Court on 21‑4‑1983 in accordance with the prescribed procedure laid down in the rules of this Court.
With the foregoing observations, this petition fails and is dismissed.
M.I. /G‑106/S Petition dismissed.