Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913

Section: 13,22,22(5)

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: OrderXX,rule14(1)

Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Section: 24,24(2)

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0. XX, R.14(1)---Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.22---Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991), S.24---Decree in pre-emption suit---Deposit of pre-emption money adjudicated under O.XX, R.14(1), C.P.C.---Applicability of S.22, Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 and S.24, Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991---Scope---Provisions of S.22 Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 and S.24, Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 had no application in cases where the pre-emption money adjudicated by Trial Court or Appellate Court had been deposited by pre-emptor in accordance with the provision of O.XX, R.14(1), C.P.C. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0. XX, R.14(I)---Decree in pre-emption suit---Trial Court, in the present case directed the pre-emptor "to deposit decretal amount less Zar-e-soyem failing which his suit shall stand dismissed"---Order XX, R.14, C.P.C. relates to an obligation imposed on a successful pre-emptor after a decree has been passed in his favour as opposed to the Zar-e-Punjam under Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 and Zar-e-Soyem under Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991---Essence of such deposit is to ensure that the purchase money is and remains available for payment to the vendee-defendant, the dismissal of the suit must follow if the Zar-e-Soyem is not deposited within the time allowed by the Court or, if deposited, is withdrawn---Withdrawal of the purchase money by the pre-emptor must result in the dismissal of his suit. Abdul Aziz and 2 others v. Abdul Majid and another 1990 MLD 102 distinguished. JUDGMENT JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---Muhammad Jamil appellant-plaintiff impugns the appellate judgment and decree dated 31-7-1997, whereby the decree of the learned trial Court dated 29-5-1994 has been reversed and as a result, the suit filed by the appellant seeking possession of the suit property through pre-emption has been dismissed. The dismissal has been effected, firstly on the ground that Muhammad Jamil's attorney did not have authority to make the talbs and, secondly, that even otherwise, the requirements of talbs, as set out in section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, have not been fulfilled. 2. However, at the very outset…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492