1984 SCMR 1530

NOOR MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM and others

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1984 SCMR 1530

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Civil Petitions Nos. 580 and 581 of 1977 R.S.A. No,157/77 and R.S.A.No,162/77

Date1984-05-28

Judge(s)Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah

Authored byNasim Hasan Shah

ResultPetition dismissed

AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal seeking to assail the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court, which upheld the rejection of the petitioner's plaint. The core legal question concerns the legality of the rejection of a plaint under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, due to the failure of the plaintiff to deposit the one-fifth probable value within the stipulated time. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error in the concurrent findings recorded by the three preceding forums regarding the failure to deposit the requisite amount. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the principle that failure to comply with statutory deposit requirements under pre-emption law justifies the rejection of the plaint.

Questions settled in this judgment

Whether a plaint can be rejected under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 for failure to deposit the one-fifth probable value in time?
Can concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the non-compliance of statutory deposit requirements be successfully assailed without showing a legal error?

Laws & provisions referred

Section 22(4), Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913

pre-emptionrejection of plaintprobable value depositcivil petition for leave to appealconcurrent findings

ORDER

1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- This order will govern Civil Petition No,580 of 1977 and Civil Petition No,531 of 1977, as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the matters and the same have been disposed of by a common judgment.

2. ' The plaint of the petitioner, in both the matters, was rejected under section 22(4) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 for his failure to deposit in time, the one-fifth probable value. The appeal against the said order filed before the District Judge failed and the second appeal was dismissed by the High Court in Mine. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. Sh. Munir Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the matters attempted to assail the concurrent findings recorded against the petitioner by the aforementioned three Courts, but was unable to show any error therein.

4. ' These petitions, therefore, fail and are dismissed hereby.