Law:

Section:

(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) _-- Ss. 6 & 22-Pre-emption suit-Zar-i-Panjum-Discretion of Court circumscribed only that amount of deposit does not exceed one-fifth of value of property but as to minimum scale range not fixed and law being silent in this regard left to discretion of Court to be exercised reasonably-Fixation of one-tenth of value of land as deposit money, held, does not in any way violate law. (b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) Ss. 6 & 22-Pre-emption-Zar-e-Panjum-Order fixing Zar-ePanjum an interlocutory order which Court has inherent jurisdiction to modify or recall-Order fixing Zar-e-Panjum pertains to proceedings and not to institution of suit within required time-Order of deposit complied with by plaintiff-respondent within time after court itself reduced amount on his application to allow to furnish security rejected-Contention that plaintiff respondent committed any default in depositing amount, held, misconceived. (c) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) --- Ss. 6 & 22-Evidence Act (I of 1872), Ss. 67 & 68 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115-Pre-emption-Waiver-Proof of writing-Whether writing appearing to be an undertaking not to dispute sale given by respondent, trial Court not dealing with question of mode of proof properly and not referring matter to expert Evidence of document occupying a pivotal position in case and proof of signature either way to be decisive as to point of waiver-Matter, held, required to be retried-Revision accepted by High Court; decree and of Courts below set aside and case remanded to trial Court to decide issue of waiver afresh after referring document in question to expert for comparison of signature. JUDGMENT Respondent Muhammad Hanif instituted a suit on 2-6-1977 at Ahmadpur East to pre-empt a sale through a registered deed dated 3-6-1976 made by Khushi Muhammad of 47 kanals 12 marlas situated in mauza Januwala, Tehsil Ahmadpur East in favour of the petitioners in consideration of Rs. 33,000. In the suit Muhammad Hanif respondent alleged his superior right based on two qualifications, (i) that he was the owner in the estate, and (ii) that he was a co-sharer qua the suit…

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