Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ZUBAIDA BEGUM VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD KHANHonorable Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah
1988 S C M R 1371
1988 S C M R 1371
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
CIVIL PETITION No.160 of 1981
Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM‑‑Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑Respondent
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 4‑10‑1980 in C.R. No.307 of 1976).
CIVIL PETITION No.83 of 1981
TARIQ MAHMOOD‑‑Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ and others‑‑Respondents
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court Lahore, dated 11‑11‑1980 in C . R . No. 248 of 1977) .
CIVIL PETITION No.875 of 1983
QADIR BAKHSH and others‑‑Petitioners
versus
NAZAR HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 14‑3‑1983 in R .S.A. No. 58 of 1981) .
CIVIL PETITION No.1350 of 1983
ABDUL SATTAR‑‑Petitioner
versus
DISTRICT JUDGE, VEHARI and others‑‑Respondents
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9‑10‑1983 in W.P. No.939 of 1983).
Civil Petition Nos.160, 83 of 1981, 875 and 1350 of 1983, decided on 23rd May, 1988.
Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)
‑‑‑S.21‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine questions: Whether late deposit of pre‑emption money would deprive the decree‑holder of the benefit obtained through the decree; lack of control over the circumstances by the decree‑holder; effect of delay occurred on account of the minority of decree‑holder in connection with which, inter alia, interpretation of S.6, Limitation Act, 19108 was involved; whether it was not permissible for an Appellate Court to grant extension of time or fresh time for deposit of pre‑emption money after decision in appeal; whether in case the Appellate Court when permitting to grant such time exercises discretion in favour of plaintiff and in fact grants time the High Court should set aside such an order.
Bhai Khan v. Allah Bakhsh 1986 S C M R 849 ref.
Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.160 of 1981).
Nemo for Respondent (in C.P. No.160 of 1981).
Ahmad Waheed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.83 of 1981).
S.Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent (in C.P. 83 of 1981).
Mahmood A . Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.875 of 1983).
Nemo for Respondent (in C.P. No.875 of 1983).
Malik Talib Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No.1350 of 1983) .
Nemo for Respondent (in C.P. No.1350 of 1983).
Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑In all these four cases wherein petitioners/ pre‑emptors have sought leave to appeal against separate judgments of the High Court in separate cases, one question is common; namely, whether the late deposit of the pre‑emption money in each case would deprive the decree‑holder of the benefit obtained through the decree. In one case, the delay occurred on account of the minority of the decree‑holder in connection with which, inter alia, interpretation of section 6 of the Limitation Act would be involved. In another case the question involved would be whether it is not permissible for an Appellate Court to grant extension of time or fresh time for deposit of pre‑emption money after decision in the appeal. Another related question would be whether in case the Appellate Court when permitting to grant such time exercises discretion in favour of the plaintiff and in fact grants time the High Court should set aside such an order. Similar other questions including the one about the lack of control over the circumstances by the plaintiff decree‑holder, would also need examination. A judgment of this Court in Bhai Khan v. Allah Bakhsh (1986 S C M R 849) has been cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ pre‑emptors. Some of the questions involved are of general public importance. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted.
Security Rs.5,000 in each case.
The appeals shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents.
M.B.A./Z‑32/8 Leave granted.