| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1986 SLG 417 1986 SLD 417 1986 SCMR 315 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 673 and 674 of 1981, decision dated: 4-09-1985. (From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 25-4-1981 in Writ Petitions Nos. 2136 and 2135, respectively of 1981).
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND SHAFIUR RAHMAN, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 673 and 674 of 1981, decision dated: 4-09-1985. (From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 25-4-1981 in Writ Petitions Nos. 2136 and 2135, respectively of 1981).
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND SHAFIUR RAHMAN, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
BASHIR AHMAD and others
VS
MUHAMMAD ASLAM and another
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)----Art. 185(3)--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 22(4)--Pre-emption suit--Extension of time for deposit of Zar-e-Panjum refused by trial Court but allowed by first appellate Court--High Courts order affirming extension of time, impugned--Exercise of discretion by first appellate Court being neither fanciful nor arbitrary, held, unexceptionable--Leave to appeal refused. Niaz Ali v. Ibrahim P L D 1976 Lah. 1057; Hadayat Ullah v. Murad Ali Khan P L D 1972 S C 69 and Ejaz Nabi v. Ghulam Hussain 1970 SCMR 169 ref. Iftikhar Ahmad Dar, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both Appeals). Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th September, 1985. ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--These two petitions for leave to appeal are directed against judgment, dated 25-4-1981 of the Lahore High Court; whereby two writ petitions filed by the petitioners arising out of two suits for pre-emption filed by the respondents, were dismissed. 2. In the suits for pre-emption, the plaintiffs having been refused (by the trial Court) extension of time for deposit of the Zar-e-Panjum, were permitted by the District Court in its revisional jurisdiction to make the deposit. Petitioners were unsuccessful in the High Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the District Judge was exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C. P. C. therefore, he could not have in his discretionary jurisdiction, set aside an order passed by the trial Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under section 22(4) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. He also contended that the exercise of discretion by the District Judge was fanciful and arbitrary, therefore, relying on Niaz Ali v. Ibrahim. P L D 1976 Lah. 1057, as also Hadayat Ullah v. Murad Ali Khan P L D 1972 S C 69, he contended, the order of the District Court impugned before the High Court, was liable to be set aside. 4.…
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