| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1979 SLG 384 1979 SLD 384 1979 PLD 766 |
Lahore High Court
Execution Second Appeal No. 359 of 1974, decided on 13-02-1979. Dates of hearing: 23rd, 24th and 26-09-1978.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD 1LYAS, JUSTICE
Akhtar Shabir for Appellant. Allah Wasaya Malik for
Respondent No. 1. Nemo for
Respondent No. 2.
Execution Second Appeal No. 359 of 1974, decided on 13-02-1979. Dates of hearing: 23rd, 24th and 26-09-1978.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD 1LYAS, JUSTICE
Akhtar Shabir for Appellant. Allah Wasaya Malik for
Respondent No. 1. Nemo for
Respondent No. 2.
GHULAM MOHYUDDIN
VS
MUHAMMAD BAKHSH AND ANOTHER
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XX,r.14,O.XXI,r.2
Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913
Section: 22
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XX, r. 14 & O. XXI, r. 2 read with Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 22-Payment of purchase money in pre-emption decreeProvision of r. 2, O. XXI not applicable to such payment-Vendee -debtor in pre-emption suit-Not covered by phrase " -debtor"-Rule 14, O. XX, requiring payment of purchase money in Court, a mandatory provision, non-compliance of which entails positive and negative penalties-General principle that technicalities should not be permitted to hinder justice and rule of substantial justice-Held, not applicable to such provision-Payment of purchase money under decree in pre-emption suit out of Court-Held, not lawful compliance with r. 14 of O. XX-[Noor Ahmad and another v. Muhammad Ramzan and another P L D 1973 B J 42; Surajmal v. Bheroolal and others A I R 1958 Raj. 311; Sher Shah and others v. Sher Jang 21 P R 1899; Sukhpal Singh v. Abdul Rahman and others A I R 1921 All. 159;Bholu Ram and others v. Kanhya and others AIR 1963 Ph. 133; Shadl and others v. Ram Ditta A I R 1936 Lah. 842 and Narayanaswami Naidu and others v. Rangaswami and others A I R 1926 Mad. 749 dissented from.-[Pre-emption-Words and phrases). Although in some of the rulings it has been held that Order XXI, rule 2, C. P. C. is not confined to only money-decree and might in proper cases apply to other decrees, yet it cannot be said that the rule by its own force would apply to the decrees in pre-emption cases. One important consideration to be kept in mind is that in the same Code, in addition to the general provisions contained in rules I and 2 of Order XXI there are special provisions with regard to the payment of purchase money in pre-emption decree contained in Order XX, rule 14. Under an accepted rule of interpretation the special provisions would, to the extent of inconsistency exclude the general provisions. This is not the only consideration, if the history of the relevant provisions in the pre-emption law and Code of Civil Procedure is kept in view, it becomes absolutely clear that the Legislature from the very beginning laid emphasis on separate treatment of the- subject of mode of payment of the pre-emption money by the…
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