Law: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, (X of 1987)

Section: 13,25

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 181

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 12(2)

(a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act (X of 1987)--- ----S. 13---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181---Pre-emption suit---Power of attorney--- Authenticity--- Proof---Requirements---Decree and execution petition, setting aside of---Fraud---Limitation---Scope---Non-deposit of entire amount fixed by court by pre-emptor---Effect---Contention of -debtor was that execution petitions were not signed by the Presiding Officer and pre-emptor had failed to deposit decretal amount before the target date fixed by the court---Validity---Neither stamp paper, whereupon the alleged power of attorney was scribed, was purchased by the debtor nor he signed the same---Burden of proof was on the beneficiary of power of attorney which had been denied by the attorney but respondents had failed to rebut the same through cogent and reliable evidence---No witness had been produced in order to prove the authenticity of alleged power of attorney and in absence of the same no such authenticity could be attached to the same---Cutting and missing of signatures of Presiding Officer on the final order sheets were on record which had created doubt with regard to compromise entered between the parties---No specific provision in the Limitation Act, 1908 or in C.P.C. existed with regard to period of limitation to challenge a decree, however, Art. 181 of Limitation Act, 1908 would be applicable in such like cases---Fraud would vitiate even solemn proceedings and period of limitation to challenge decree would start from the date of knowledge---Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. could be filed within three years and present petition was within time---Impugned decree was effective only when decree holder deposited the amount on or before the date fixed by the court failing which suit should stand dismissed---Decree holder (pre-emptor) failed to deposit the entire amount fixed by the court rather he had deposited a deficit amount---Suit would be dismissed if pre-emptor had failed to deposit the amount fixed by the court and court passing the decree had no power to amend the order with regard to deposit of amount or allow the decree holder to make the…

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