| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1965 SLG 4742 = 1965 SLD 4742 = 1965 PLD 394 |
West Pakistan Lahore
Second Appeal from Order No. 7 of 1963, decided on 21st January 1965.
Presented By: A. R. Sheikh, J
Zaman Mehdi Khan v. Hayat Khan A I R 1938 Lah. 452; Zorawar Singh v. Jasbir Singh A I R 1938 Lah. 606; Muhammad Ahmad v. Aziz-ur-Rahman A I R 1947 Lah. 72 and Ghulam Muhammad v. The Crown I L R 14 Lah. 284 ref. Raja Said Akbar Khan for Appellant. Mian Muhammad Shafi and Muhammad Ishaque Faruqi for
Respondents.
Second Appeal from Order No. 7 of 1963, decided on 21st January 1965.
Presented By: A. R. Sheikh, J
Zaman Mehdi Khan v. Hayat Khan A I R 1938 Lah. 452; Zorawar Singh v. Jasbir Singh A I R 1938 Lah. 606; Muhammad Ahmad v. Aziz-ur-Rahman A I R 1947 Lah. 72 and Ghulam Muhammad v. The Crown I L R 14 Lah. 284 ref. Raja Said Akbar Khan for Appellant. Mian Muhammad Shafi and Muhammad Ishaque Faruqi for
Respondents.
Mian AKHTAR ISLAM-Petitioner
VERSUS
Ch. ZULFIQAR ALI AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 11,115
Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)
Section: 22(1),22(4)
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------- -----S. 11-Revision petition dismissed in liming-Question not "heard and finally decided" order of dismissal does not operate as res judicata-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115-Revisional jurisdiction, one of supervisory nature. In a revision petition when the High Court declines to interfere and the revision petition is dismissed in limine, it cannot be said that the question before the Court has been heard and finally decided, for the reason that the opposite-party is not before the Court at motion stage and mere refusal of the Court to exercise jurisdiction of supervisory nature under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not mean that the decision assailed in the revision petition has been in any manner affirmed by the High Court. Ram Kirpal Shukul v. Mst. Rup Kuari 11 I A 37 distinguished. (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913)------- -----S. 22 (1) (4)-Pre emption suit-Order of Court to file security bond for 1/5th of probable value of property by certain date-Bond filed but objected to as insufficiently stamped-Court fixing date for arguments on objection raised but by another order allowing plaint, on his request to deposit 1/5th in cash by next date-Held; security bond being "patently" insufficiently stamped, and no attempt having been made to make up deficiency there was no compliance with order of Court-Subsequent order allowing cash deposit was "erroneous in law"-Court having allowed filing of security bond in first instance had no power left to order cash deposit --Period fixed for filing security bond could not be extended. In a pre-emption suit the trial Court directed the plaintiff to put in under section 22 (I), Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 a security bond for one-fifth of the sale money by the 30th of July 1959. On this date an objection having been taken to the sufficiency of the stamp on the security bond filed by the pre-emptor the Court made an order to the effect that the defendant's counsel objects to the stamp on the security bond, and, therefore, the case should come up for arguments on the 11th of…