| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 2148 1992 SLD 2148 1992 PLJ 437 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1204 of 1992, decided on 29.7.1992 (approved for reporting on 16.8.1992). Date of hearing: 29.7.1992.
GUL ZARIN KLANI, J
Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, Advocate for Petitioner.
Civil Revision No. 1204 of 1992, decided on 29.7.1992 (approved for reporting on 16.8.1992). Date of hearing: 29.7.1992.
GUL ZARIN KLANI, J
Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, Advocate for Petitioner.
MUHAMMAD NAWAZer
VS
GHULAM RASOOL and another--Respondents
Law:
Section:
Practice and Procedure-- —Pre-emption decree-Execution of~Procedure for-Within a couple of days, pre-jemption decree was put in execution and within two days, it was finalized and everything was over-Generally proverbial delays occur in execution of decrees which have become hall-mark of our system-Despite full throated cries all around, things do not seem to improve-Surprisingly, in this case, execution of pre-emption decree took only two days which looks miraculous-¬Held: It is desired that we could attain similar speed in alike matters to promote and inspire confidence of persons approaching courts for decision of their disputes-Held further: However, alacrity must be consistent with a desire to promote and maintain confidence in institution of courts. [P.439JAB PLD 1959 (WP) Lahore 146 re/. JUDGMENT Petitioner pre-empted the sale of land in favour of the respondents. On 17.5.1992, the trial Court decreed pre-emption, in his favour subject to his paying Rs. 1,62015/- as purchase-price for the land to the respondents, within thirty days from the date of the decree. In default of payment by due date, pre-emption suit was to stand dismissed. On 30.5.1992, respondents preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court to learned District Judge, Sialkot. It was marked to a learned Additional District Judge of the District. It came up before him on the same day. He admitted the appeal to hearing, and, meanwhile suspended the operation of the impugned judgment and decree subject to deposit of an adequate security for the mesne-profits of the land-in-dispute to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Learned counsel says that security was furnished on 1.6.1992, and, theorder became operative then. Petitioner soon complied with the terms of the decree and deposited the purchase-price in Court. On 28.5.1992, he executed his decree for delivery of possession of the land to him. On 30.5.1992, it was reported to the Execution Court that possession was delivered to the petitioner. On 6.6.1992, respondents applied to the Execution Court for re-delivery of the possession of the land-in-dispute to them. It was stated that the proceedings taken for…
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