Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAH MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: GHULAM MUHAMMADHonorable Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah
1988 S C M R 1378
1988 S C M R 1378
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
SHAH MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Petitioners
versus
GHULAM MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.348 of 1983, decided on 21st May, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 10‑1‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in C.R. No.1033 of 1982).
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑S.21‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Payment of Zar‑i‑Punjab‑‑Delay‑‑Error on the part of Court functionaries‑‑Effect.
Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Abdul Majid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and‑ Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 21st May, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the vendees in a pr‑emption matter. The
challenge is to the determination of two questions by the learned Courts below; one relating to payment of court‑fee and the other relating to the payment of Zar‑i‑Punjam. The impugned decisions having gone against the petitioners, they have now sought leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the question of court‑fee on account of the judgment of this Court in the case of Siddique Khan (P L D 1986 S C 289). With regard to Zar‑I- Punjab he has reiterated the same argument (of late payment), as was raised before the High Court in Civil Revision. It was repelled with reference to the justification for accepting the delayed payment. The respondents were not to be blamed, there was some error on the part of the Court functionaries. In any case, no justification has been made out for interference by this Court, leave to appeal is, accordingly, refused and the petition is dismissed.
M. B. A . /S‑150/S Leave refused.