KHALILUR REHMAN (REPRESENTED By HE1RS) vs MUHAMMAD HUMAYUN KHAN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court, wherein the High Court granted an extension of time to the respondent under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to deposit a pre-emption amount. The respondent had instituted a pre-emption suit which was decreed in his favour upon payment of Rs. 12,000, and subsequent appeals by the respondent to the District Judge were dismissed. During the second appeal before the High Court, the respondent sought to withdraw the appeal subject to an extension of time being granted for depositing the sum. The petitioner challenged this order, contending that no concession regarding the extension of time was made by his counsel in the High Court, supported by an affidavit. Upon the Court pointing out that the appropriate remedy was to seek a review in the High Court, the petitioner's counsel opted to withdraw the petition to pursue review proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
- Can the High Court extend the time to deposit a pre-emption amount under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What is the proper course of remedy when a party disputes a factual observation recorded in a High Court order regarding a concession made by counsel?
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.-This petition involves a short point for consideration. The respondent herein instituted a pre-emption suit against the petitioner, in the Court of Civil Judge First Class, Mansehra. The suit was decreed in his favour on the payment of Rs, 12,000 to the petitioner. Being aggrieved of the decree of the trial Court, only in so far as it fixed the value of the suit land at Rs, 12,000 the respondent went in appeal to the Court of the District Judge, Hazara, but the same was dismissed, vide his judgment dated 5th December, 1974. Finally, the respondent went to the High Court in Second Appeal, and during the course of the arguments he expressed his willingness to withdraw the appeal, and to deposit the sum of Rs, 12,000 but only if the Court was to grant the extension of time to him in-that behalf. The High Court took the view that under section 151, C. P. C., the time to deposit the said amount could be extended, and further that "the learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the extension of time". It is this part of the order of the High Court that the petitioner is aggrieved, and seeks leave to appeal.
2. ' The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no concession had been made in the High Court on behalf of the petitioner in respect of the extension of time. In support of his contention he relied on the affiadvt of Mr. Fazal Elahi, Advocate, who had appeared for the petitioner in the High Court which supports him. However, when we pointed out to the learned counsel that the proper course for him ought to have been to seek the review of the impugned order of the High Court, he accepted the suggestion and made a statement from the bar that he is withdrawing this petition, and would institute in the High Court review proceedings against the impugned judgment.
3. ' In view of the statement made by the learned counsel, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn.