| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 885 2017 SLD 885 2017 PLJ 84 |
High Court (AJ&K)
C.A. Nos. 102 & 104 of 2012, decided on 7.12.2016, Date of hearing: 7.12.2016.
GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, CHEIF, JUSTICE
Syed Tufail Hussain Bukhari, Advocate for M. Yaseen. Mr. Rafiullah Sultani, Advocate for Deewan Ali etc.
C.A. Nos. 102 & 104 of 2012, decided on 7.12.2016, Date of hearing: 7.12.2016.
GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, CHEIF, JUSTICE
Syed Tufail Hussain Bukhari, Advocate for M. Yaseen. Mr. Rafiullah Sultani, Advocate for Deewan Ali etc.
MUHAMMAD YASEEN ETC.
VS
DEEWAN ALI AND others --RespondentS
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----O. XX, R. 14(a) & (b)--Decree in pre-emption suit--Mode of dictating in pre-emption suit--Entitlement of condonation of delay as appeal entertained by ASJ--Consideration amount was not deposited within stipulated period--Judgment to extent determination of market value of land--Validity--Presiding Officer is bound to order that if amount mentioned is not paid as per direction suit would be deemed to have been dismissed--During that period pre-emptor had not filed any appeal nor applied for suspension of operation of of trial Court--Pre-emptor applied for certified copies of and decree on last date--Pre-emptor was negligent in pursuing his case and has not complied with --Last date for depositing of consideration amount was 30.01.2012 therefore, it was enjoined upon pre-emptor to file appeal before that date--Decretal amount could not be deposited because Presiding Officer was on leave hence, delay could have been condoned, is also devoid of any force because no proof has been appended with appeal regarding leave of Presiding Officer nor any application rejected by Reader of Court has been appended with appeal--Even no application has been filed for condonation of delay--Plaint stood dismissed for not complying with direction of Court, therefore, filing of appeal on 06.02.2012 is of no use and suspension of at that time is also not helpful to pre-emptor. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----S. 100--Second appeal--No objection was raised before First Appellate Court regarding competency of appeal hence cannot be raised in second appeal--Question of competency of appeal--Validity--Law is well settled that no estoppel can be pleaded against provisions of law. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, CHEIF JUSTICE:---.--- The captioned appeals arise out of a common judgment and decree and raised common question of facts and law, hence, were heard together and are decided through this single judgment. Precise facts of the captioned appeals are that suit land comprising Khewat No. 26 Khata No. 192 khasra No. 857 measuring 4 kanal 6 marlassituated in village Bharand Tehsil Sehnsa was in the ownership…
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