| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 3030 1970 SLD 3030 = 1970 PLD 54 |
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 174 of 1969, decided on 17th October 1969.
Presented By: Shah Zaman Babar, J
Beni Prasad v. Om Prakash and another (1938) 177 I C 824; Hukam Chand and others v. Hayat and others (1912) 47 P R 343 ; Himmun v. Fouja A I R 1921 Lah. 6 and Mardan Shah v. Sattara and others P L D 1954 Lah. 87 rel.
Civil Revision No. 174 of 1969, decided on 17th October 1969.
Presented By: Shah Zaman Babar, J
Beni Prasad v. Om Prakash and another (1938) 177 I C 824; Hukam Chand and others v. Hayat and others (1912) 47 P R 343 ; Himmun v. Fouja A I R 1921 Lah. 6 and Mardan Shah v. Sattara and others P L D 1954 Lah. 87 rel.
FEROZ DIN-Petitioner
VERSUS
SHEIKH AHMAD-Respondent
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 148, 151
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 148 & 151-Provisions of Ss. 148 & 151 cannot be invoked to alter a decree-Court while decreeing pre-emption suit directing plaintiff to deposit pre-emption money sill date fixed failing which suit was to be dismissed-Plaintiff failing to deposit requisite amount by fixed date but while filing appeal praying for extension of time to deposit pre-emption money-Held, provisions of Ss. 148 & 151 could not be invoked to seek extension of time for deposit of pre emption money. The principle underlying the application of section 148, C. P. C. to a case depends on the question whether the mater has been finally disposed of by the Court or the Court is seized of the matter and has control over it. If the order is not final ani the Court retains its control over and is seized of the matter, it has full power to make any just or necessary order therein including in appropriate cases the extension of the time under this section. On the other hand, if the effect of the order is that in the event of non-compliance, it operates automatically and without further intervention of the Court, this section cannot be applied for the obvious reason that the Court ceases to be seized of the matter and becomes functus officio. Thus, the Court ceases to have jurisdiction over the matter after the order granting the period has passed. The time cannot be extended even by the same Court. Malik Abdul Latif for Petitioner. ORDER Feroz Din plaintiff-petitioner sued Sheikh Ahmad defendant respondent for possession of land, bearing Khata No. 420/756, Khasra No. 50, measuring 14 kanals, 14 marlas out of it to the extent of 1/3rd snare of ownership right with share of Shamilat and Khata No. 421/757, 757, Khasra No. 78 and 79 (two plots), measuring 24 kanals, 10 marlas, out of it to the extent of 36/40 share of the occupancy right situated in the area of Jhangra, Tehsil Abbottabad or whatever the area on rights may be proved to be transferred in favour of the defendant on the basis of sale mutation No. 2435 attested on 28th October 1966 by pre-emption on payment of Rs. 1500 or the price fixed by the Court. The learned Civil Judge, Abbottabad,…