Law:

Section:

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act (X of 1987)----- -----Ss. 24 & 28----- Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199----- Constitutional petition-----Pre-emption suit----- Maxim: actus curiae neminem----- Applicability----- Sale price assessed by pre-emptor in the suit, relevancy of-----Deposit of sale price-----Plaintiff (petitioner) filed suit for possession through pre-emption to pre-empt sale in his favour claiming that sale consideration mentioned in mutation was inflated as compared to actual sale price as assessed by plaintiff-----Trial Court inadvertently allowed plaintiff to deposit one third of sale price, not as mentioned in mutation, but as assessed by plaintiff, within thirty days, which he deposited with delay of one day-----Defendant/vendee filed application before Trial Court for dismissal of suit of plaintiff on ground of default in payment of pre-emption amount within the given time, which the Trial Court dismissed holding that plaintiff had complied with the direction having deposited one third of sale price as required; and revisional court affirmed said order of dismissal on ground that party should not have suffered by act of court-----Validity-----Findings of Trial Court were misconceived and view taken by revisional court was misplaced-----Courts below had wrongly interpreted act of court and had not evaluated available record in true perspective-----Sale price assessed by plaintiff would not be relevant in any eventuality for deposit of one third amount of pre-emption----- Sale con-sideration mentioned in instrument had to be considered for said purpose in terms of S. 24 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987-----Court Moharrir, while making report on said application of plaintiff, was required to see instrument on basis of which suit had been filed-----Plaintiff was also responsible for negligence and non-compliance of the direction and he had to stand on his own legs to pursue his case and later on to prove through evidence-----Maxim "Actus curiae neminem gravabit" was not applicable to the present case-----Courts below also ignored the fact that plaintiff had deposited the amount with delay of one day-----Period of one month once…

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