Case Details

Citation(s)
2001 SLG 1448 2001 SLD 1448 2001 SCMR 1091
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.894 of 1994, decision dated: 22-01-2001, hearing DATE : 10-11-2000
MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI, IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND RANA BHAGWAN DAS, JJ
Gul Zarin Kiani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Anwar H. Mir, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents

QADIR BAKHSH and 10 others

VS

Kh. NIZAMUDDIN KHAN and 4 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)--- ----Ss. 21 & 22---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether on facts and circumstances of the case High Court was legally justified in affirming the findings of Appellate Court on the issue of limitation and non-deposit of pre­emption money and extension in time for its deposit coupled with substitution by or modification with security. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 185---Appeal to Supreme Court---Raising of pleas not considered in leave granting order passed by Supreme Court---Effect---Supreme Court declined to consider the pleas which were not considered at the time of leave granting order. (c) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)--- ----S. 22---Zar-e-Panjam (preemption money), deposit of---Extension of time for such deposit---Furnishing of security instead of deposit of cash amount---Trial Court extended time for deposit of Zar-e-Panjam and during the extension the pre-emptor applied for furnishing of personal security--­Trial Court refused the deposit of such security but First Appellate Court allowed the same which was affirmed by High Court---Suit was dismissed by Trial Court but the findings were reversed by First Appellate Court and the suit was decreed---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction upheld the judgment of Appellate Court---Objection to the furnishing of personal security was raised by the vendees---Validity---Where in a suit for pre­emption extension of time for deposit of Zar-e-Panjam or for that matter its substitution with the order of furnishing security, instead of cash-deposit, was refused, but 'allowed by First Appellate Court and affirmed by High Court, such exercise of discretion by Appellate Court was neither fanciful nor, arbitrary Gild the same was unexceptionable---Issues having correctly been decided by both the First Appellate Court and High Court appeal against such judgment was dismissed by Supreme Court. Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Muhammad Aslam and others 1990 SCMR 968; Mst. Parveen v. Jamshaid Begum PLD 1983 SC 227; Siddique Khan v Shakoor Khan PLD 1984 SC 289; Mst. Sardaro and…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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