Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Section: 13,24

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115(1)(a)(b)(c),115

Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 (IX of 1991)-- ----Ss. 13 ,  24--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), S. 115(1)(a)(b)(c)--Pre-emption suit--Concurrent findings--Direction to deposit in Court one third of sale-price--Short fall of small portion of sale consideration--Declination of application for deposit of balance amount--Non-compliance of order--Exercising of revision power--Challenge to--Consequences for plaintiff in failing to deposit one-third amount of sale consideration within time prescribed by Courts orders, which cannot extend beyond thirty days--Consequence is dismissal of suit--Section 115 of Code enables a Court to exercise revisional power, contours of which are proscribed--Judge of High Court assumed jurisdiction which was not vested in him by Section 115 of Code--Plaintiff did not deposit stipulated one-third of sale consideration amount within prescribed period, as provided for in Section 24 of Act, and thus attracted consequences thereof, which was dismissal of suit--Appeal allowed. [Pp. 25 , 26 ] A, B ,  D Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----S. 115--Exercising of revisional jurisdiction--Suit was correctly dismissed, and in accordance with law--Causes (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 115 were not attracted therefore jurisdiction thereunder could not be exercised by High Court.     [P. 26] C Date of hearing: 28.10.2021. JUDGMENT Qazi Faez Isa, J.--This appeal has been preferred as of right under Article 185(2) of the Constitution as the learned Single Judge of the High Court in exercise of revision powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the Code’) set aside two concurrent judgments of the Subordinate Courts which had dismissed the pre-emption suit filed by the respondents’ predecessor on the ground that his non-compliance with the order of the Trial Court, dated 18 May 2005, whereby he was directed to deposit in Court the stipulated one-third of the sale price within thirty days, could be varied, and having come to this conclusion permitted him to deposit the shortfall. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants states that as per record the sale price of the property purchased by 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