Law: Protection Against Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2010 (IV of 2010)--

Section: 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 16

Civil Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----O.VII R. 11--Punjab Pre-emption Act, (IX of 1991), Ss. 13 & 24--Application for rejection of plaint--Dismissed--Revision--Accepted--Writ petition--Allowed--Suit for pre-emption--Zar-e-soim was not deposited--Requirement of--It is settled that plaintiff was required to deposit 1/3rd amount within 30 days from date of filing of suit--Order impugned was not sustainable under law--Revisional Court rightly dismissed suit under valid provisions of law--Appeals allowed. [Pp. 653 & 654] A & B PLD 2017 SC 674, PLD 2013 SC 489 and PLD 2012 SC 764 ref. Mr. Junaid Anwar, ASC and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR for Appellants. Mr. Tariq Ahmed Mian, ASC via video link from Lahore for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7.5.2024. Order Amin-ud-Din Khan, J.--Leave was granted in this matter vide order dated 31.03.2010, which is reproduced: “Heard the learned counsel on behalf of the parties at length. There is divergence of views in the judgments whereby Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 has been interpreted. The question as to whether the period of 30 days shall start from the date of institution of suit or from the order made by the learned trial Court before expiring of 30 days as provided in Section 24 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 needs a thorough consideration and besides that it is also to be seen as to whether the principle as enumerated in General Clauses Act would be made applicable or otherwise? The learned ASC on behalf of petitioner has placed reliance on the following authorities: Mushtaq Hussain Shah v. Jewan (2007 MLD 1062), Fazal Elahi v. Noor Ahmad (PLD 2006 Lahore 318), Imran Ahmad v. District Judge (2003 CLC 1597), Muhammad Jehangir v. Muhammad Abbas (2004 CLC 538). 2. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted, which may be fixed at some early date.” 2. The matter is very short and simple one. The plaintiff-respondent flied a suit to pre-empt the sale of land in favour of appellant. The suit was flied on 12.06.2004. On the request of learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent for preliminary hearing it was adjourned and fixed for 14.06.2004 as 13.06.2004 was holiday. The question is whether in the light…

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