Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: HAKIM ALI VS Respondent: KHALIL AHMAD
1988 S C M R 1530
1988 S C M R 1530
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
HAKIM ALI and others‑‑Petitioners
versus
KHALIL AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.672 of 1984, decided on 4th June, 1988. (Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7‑4‑1984 in R.S.A. No.21 of 1981).
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑‑‑S.22(1)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Petitioner had been non‑suited after initial grant of decree, on the ground that 'he had failed to furnish bond and surety in accordance with direction of Court under S.22(1)‑‑Instead of writing full amount in the bond, as a Zari "Saman" only Zari "Panjum" was written by mistake of the draftsman which clearly appeared to be cogent and reasonable and also could be accepted‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine inter alia as to whether amount recoverable would be Zari Saman or Zari Punjum under S.22(1) or that notwithstanding the bond for Zari Saman the recovery would be only for a Zari Panjum to which the said provision relates.
A.K. Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 4th June, 1988.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by pre‑emptors against the decision of the High Court in a Regular Second Appeal. The petitioners have been non‑suited after initial grant of the decree, on the ground that they had failed to furnish the bond and surety in accordance with the direction of the Court under section 22(1) of ,the Punjab Pre‑emption Act.
The first two Courts treated the bond/surety furnished by the petitioners (page 38 of the Paper Book) as the proper one. The High Court, however, thought that the bond did not contain the necessary words, so as to satisfy the language of subsection (1) of section 22 of the Act. We have read the entire document. It seems that proper attention was not given to the reverse page of the bond which clearly satisfied the order of the Court as also the language of the statutory provision.
Even the bond on the front page could be interpreted as having satisfied section 22(1) as prima facie the words used in the document would satisfy the condition.
Although according to the learned counsel, instead of writing full amount, as a Zari "Saman" only Zari "Panjum" was written by the mistake of the draftsman which clearly appears to be cogent and reasonable and also could be accepted; we are of the view that the' question might be examined as to whether the amount recoverable would be Zari Saman or Zari Panjum under section 22(1) of the Act. One view would be that notwithstanding the bond for Zari Saman the recovery would be only for Zari Panjum to which the said provision relates. This question being of first impression together with other questions involved in this case, requires examination. Leave to appeal accordingly is granted. Security Rs.5,000/‑. The appeal to be made ready on the present record with direction to the parties to file all I necessary additional documents within two months. M.B.A./H‑42/S Leave granted.