Pakistan Case Law
2006 PLD Supreme Court 140

SHUJAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD RIASAT and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2006 PLD Supreme Court 140
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,1630 of 2004
Date2005-12-01
Judge(s)Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the enlargement of time to deposit pre-emption money. The petitioner had been granted a pre-emption decree subject to the condition of depositing a specific sum within two months. Upon failing to deposit the required amount within the stipulated period, the petitioner sought an extension of time under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The core legal question was whether the court retained the authority to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money after the suit had already stood automatically dismissed due to non-compliance with the conditional decree. The Supreme Court held that once the conditional decree was passed and the time for deposit expired, the suit stood automatically dismissed, rendering the court functus officio. Consequently, the court could not extend the time, as doing so would prejudice the valuable right that had accrued to the vendee. The petition was dismissed, affirming that non-compliance with a conditional pre-emption decree results in automatic dismissal.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a court extend the time for depositing pre-emption money after the suit has stood automatically dismissed for non-compliance?
  • Does a court become functus officio once a conditional decree is passed and the time for compliance expires?
  • Does the failure to deposit pre-emption money within the time fixed by a conditional decree result in the automatic dismissal of the suit?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 148, C.P.C.
pre-emptionconditional decreefunctus officioenlargement of timeautomatic dismissalcivil procedure

' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--Shujat Ali seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 8-6- 2004 whereby his C.M.A. No,495-C of 2004 was dismissed along with Civil Revision No,541 of 2003, dismissing his suit for pre-emption on 30-3-2004 on account of non-deposit of pre-emption money.

2. The petitioner was granted a pre-emption decree by a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench on 30-3-2004 subject to deposit of Rs, 4,50,000 minus Zar-e-Soyam, within a period of two months. The pre-emptor failed to deposit such preemption money and, in turn filed an application under section 148, C.P.C. For enlargement of time to deposit the pre- emption money. Such application was rejected.

3. It is but obvious that once having passed a conditional decree and the suit having stood automatically dismissed for non-deposit of preemption money, the Court decreeing the suit had become focus officio. It is also obvious that the Court could not have extended the time not only because non-compliance had operated into automatic dismissal of suit but also because a very valuable right had thereby accrued to the vendee, now a decree-holder. The impugned order cannot be taken any exception to. There being no force in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.

Cited by 23 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.