Case Details

Citation(s)
2001 SLG 1334 2001 SLD 1334 2001 SCMR 543
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 1242 of 1998, decision dated: 30-11-2000
ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND TANVIR AHMED KHAN, JJ
Abdul Aziz Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record for Appellants

SHAHAB-UDDIN and 5 others

VS

MIR ALI KHAN

Law:

Section:

(a) North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act (X of 1987)--- --r-S. 24---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Deposit of pre­-emption money---Concealing of original price by the pre-emptor --- Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider that whether in the plaint the pre-emptor deliberately with mala fide intention did not disclose that the sale consideration was Rs.66,95,000 whereas a statement was made that the sale consideration was Rs.13,01,400 in order to avoid deposit of 1/3rd of Rs.66,95,000 and therefore he approached the Court with unclean hands; that whether deposit of 1/3rd of the pre-emption money as required by law was intended to ascertain that the pre-emptor in pre-emption suit had money to pre-empt the sale and he was prosecuting the suit bona fidely and the act of concealment of the real amount of consideration in the plaint would detract from the bona fides of the pre-emptor; that whether no appeal against the order of Trial Court requiring the pre-emptor to make up deficiency in the pre-emption money was maintainable as the same was not appealable order and the Lower Appellate Court extended the time without giving any reason or justification without considering the conduct of the pre-emptor, who, instead of in complying with the order of the Trial Court to make up deficiency in the pre-emption money, filed appeal which established that he was not prosecuting the pre-emption suit bona fidely, that whether on the date when the High Court dismissed the revision petition in limine of the Lower Appellate Court granting him further time to make up deficiency in the pre-emption money the time already allowed by that Court had not yet expired who should have directed to comply with the same but without application of judicial mind to the abovementioned facts and circumstances about mala fides of the pre-emptor the time was further extended without notice to the vendor whose rights were adversely affected as to get rejection of the plaint; that whether after dismissal of revision petition in limine by High Court without notice to the pre-emptors the only remedy available to them was to file a review application to get…
🔒
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