Law:

Section:

(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)--- ----S. 24---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)---Pre-emption suit---Deposit of zar-e-soem of the property---Timeframe/period fixed for such deposit---Scope---Failure to deposit zar-e-soem of the property---Effect---Pre-emptor (petitioner) had instituted a suit for pre-emption but failed to deposit the zar-e-soem within thirty days, as directed by the Trial Court---Subsequently the pre-emptor, rather than moving an application for extension of time, moved an application asking for permission to deposit the zar-e-soem, which application was allowed by the Trial Court "subject to provisions of law of Pre-emption 1991"---Contentions of the pre-emptor were that by allowing his subsequent application, the court had allowed him to make the deposit for which no time was fixed, and in such circumstances the deposit made by him was within the 30 days period---Validity---Court was under a legal obligation and had to mandatorily require the pre-emptor to deposit the zar-e-soem and for that purpose it had a discretion to fix a specific time frame-Such time frame/period, in view of proviso to S.24(1) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, could not exceed 30 days, rather it was a specific constraint on the jurisdiction/discretion of the court---Any order of the court permitting the pre-emptor to make the deposit beyond 30 days would be in violation of the law and thus illegal and untenable in the eyes of the law---Where the pre-emptor failed to make the deposit in terms of S.24(1) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, his suit was liable to be dismissed in view of S.24(2) of the Act---Suit of the pre-emptor, in the present case was liable to be dismissed as he failed to make the deposit in terms of the order of the Trial Court (30 days' time)---Trial Court under no circumstances had the jurisdiction and authority to extend the statutory fixed time of 30 days---Subsequent application filed by the pre-emptor, deliberately did not mention the fact that statutory time for deposit had already lapsed, and the Trial Court, in order to avoid any legal implications quite appropriately allowed the application "subject to provision of law of…

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