Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAUKAT ALI VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD INAM
1988 S C M R 1867
1988 S C M R 1867
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
SHAUKAT ALI‑‑Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD INAM-‑Respondent
Civil Petition No.409 of 1984, decided on 25th May, 1988.
(a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑
‑‑‑S.22‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption‑ Delay in deposit of pre‑emption money consequent upon wrong order passed by trial Court with regard to actual amount to be deposited‑ Plea that respondent was not vigilant so as to prevent Court from committing the error, repelled‑‑Record did not show that petitioner on becoming aware of said error did anything within their power to get it corrected‑‑Parties before Courts act in aid of legality and justice and do not want to obtain illegal gains nor do they‑ try to trap adversary in technical faults‑‑Petition being, without substance, dismissed.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Administration of justice‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑ Conduct of parties before Courts‑‑Assumption of good conduct‑‑Trial Court committing error‑‑Respondent not vigilant to prevent Court from committing error‑‑Petitioner having failed to do anything within its power to get error corrected was disallowed to ,take benefit on assumption that the parties before Courts act in aid of legality and justice and do not want to obtain illegal gains nor do they try to trap the adversary in technical faults‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Talib Hussain Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S.Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 25th May, 1988.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This is a vendees' petition in a pre‑emption matter against the dismissal of their Regular First Appeal by the High Court.
The only point pressed by the learned counsel relates to the so‑called late deposit of pre‑emption money.
2. It is not denied by the learned counsel that the so‑called default on the part of the respondent /pre‑emptor resulted on account of a wrong order passed by the learned trial Court with regard to the actual amount to be deposited. The only noticeable circumstance pointed out is that he should have been vigilant so as to prevent the Court from committing the error. We do not agree with him; firstly, on the point that the respondent was not vigilant, and secondly, from the record it does not appear that when the petitioners became aware of the error committed by the trial Court they did anything within their power to get the error corrected on the assumption that the parties before our Courts act in aid of legality and justice and do not want to obtain illegal gains nor do they try to trap the adversary in technical faults. Be that as it may, after hearing the learned counsel, we are unable to find any substance in this petitions and the same is dismissed.
M.I./S‑189/S Petition dismissed.