| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 511 2016 SLD 511 2016 SCMR 834 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 1207 of 2004 along with C.A. 1208 of 2004 and C.As. Nos. 577-578 of 2006, decided on 6th January, 2016.
GULZAR AHMED AND DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ishfaq Qayyum Cheema, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. 1207-1208 of 2004). Muhammad Siddique Khan Baloch, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. 577-578 of 2006). Taki Ahm
Civil Appeal No. 1207 of 2004 along with C.A. 1208 of 2004 and C.As. Nos. 577-578 of 2006, decided on 6th January, 2016.
GULZAR AHMED AND DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ishfaq Qayyum Cheema, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. 1207-1208 of 2004). Muhammad Siddique Khan Baloch, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. 577-578 of 2006). Taki Ahm
MUHAMMAD IJAZ and another
VS
MUHAMMAD SHAFI through L.Rs.
Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913
Section: 21,30
Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887
Section: 77
Law: High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders
Section: Vol.1,Chap.1,PartB,R.7(c)
(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) [since repealed]--- ----Ss. 21 & 30 [since repealed]---High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. 1, Chap. 1, Part B, R. 7(c)---Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S. 23---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 28---Suit for pre-emption---Presentation of plaint---Limitation---Plaint filed before Tehsildar in absence of Civil Judge---Propriety---High Court (Lahore) had authorized the District and Sessions Judges to confer upon any officer, powers of receiving plaints, to sign and endorse forms for the deposit of rent and other amounts in temporary absence of Civil Judges from the Tehsil Headquarters---Accordingly the District Judge, in the present case, had issued a notification [notification No. 157/C-II-26 dates 10-02-1969] authorizing Tehsildars to receive plaints in absence of Civil Judges in the area---In the present case, pre-emptors filed their plaints before the Tehsildar as admittedly Civil Judge was absent---Even if it was assumed, albeit not correct, that filing of plaint before the Tehsildar was not valid, then S. 4 of Limitation Act, 1908 and rules of propriety would come into play and no limitation would run against the pre-emptors till the date, the competent court, i.e. the Civil Judge reopened for judicial work---Further filing of plaints before the Tehsildar in the absence of Civil Judge in the Tehsil/sub-division was a regular practice at the relevant time, which was evident from the fact that once the Civil Judge returned to his work, he received the plaints from the Tehsildar without any exception or reservation and registered the same in the relevant register---Suits for pre-emption had correctly been decreed in the present case---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Rashad Ehsan and others v. Bashir Ahmad PLD 1989 SC 146 and Muhammad Yar v. Muhammad 2003 SCMR 1772 ref. (b) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S. 11---Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S. 77---Tehsildar---Two-fold jurisdiction---Under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, Tehsildar acted as a Revenue Officer which fell within the administrative province of the revenue authorities, however, the same Tehsildar was (also) graded as 1st…
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