Case Details

Citation(s)
1975 SLG 3244 = 1975 SLD 3244 = 1975 PLD 523
Lahore High Court
Review Application No. 29-C of 1974 (in Regular Second Appeal No. 165 of 1969), decided on 24th April, 1975.
Presented By: Sardar Muhammad Iqbal, C J
Muhammad Ismail for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Farooq for
Respondents.

ABDUL GHAFOOR AND ANOTHER-Petitioners

VERSUS

Mst. IQBAL BEGUM AND ANOTHER-Respondents

Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)

Section: 22(5)(x)

(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)  S. 22(5)(x)-Pre-emption money, withdrawal of-Plaintiffs-pre emptors-decree-holders withdrawing pre-emption money, during pendency of defendants' second appeal, with permission of Court Defendants' contention in appeal that plaintiffs' suit stood dismissed for withdrawal of pre-emption money, held, cannot be accepted in circumstances. The plaintiff-respondents in the instant case had deposited one-fifth of the sale price during the pendency of the suit. When the suit was decreed in their favour, they deposited the remaining amount of the pre-emption money as determined by the Court. The amount was not withdrawn by them till the disposal of the first appeal by the Additional District Judge. They did not do so even when the High Court admitted the Second Appeal to full hearing and suspended operation of the judgments and decrees in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. Even during the pendency of the second appeal they did not withdraw the amount without leave of the Court. Their application seeking permission of the Court in this behalf was not opposed by the counsel for the applicant. If there had been any intention on the part of the Legislature to make the withdrawal of the pre-emption money on the part of the respondent-pre emptor militate against him, it could do so by providing in subsection (5)(a) of section 22 that "If any sum so deposited is withdrawn by the plaintiff, the suit or appeal shall be dismissed, and if he is a respondent in an appeal, the appeal shall be accepted'". Therefore, in the absence of any provision to that effect, it cannot be said that if the plaintiff -respondent withdraws the amount, the appeal should be accepted. Paras Ram v. Dalpat Rai 54 I C 268 distinguished Prem Singh v. Lakha Singh and others A I R 1929 Lah. 387 not approved. Sanwal Das v. Jaigo Mal and others A I R 1924 Lab. 68 ref. Azhar Ali v. Nur Muhammad P L D 1960 Lab. 728 discussed, distinguished, observations held obiter dicta. (b) Judgment- Ratio decidendi-Obiter dicta-Meanings. All the observations in a judgment cannot be deemed to establish authoritatively a proposition of law, unless the same…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register