SAEED AHMAD AND OTHERS vs GHULAM NABI AND OTHERS
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order passed by the High Court in revision, where the petitioners had failed to deposit the probable value of the land in a pre-emption suit within the stipulated time. The core legal question concerned the correctness of the amount fixed as the probable value and the extension of time for depositing the required sum. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the correctness of the probable value were proper, and noted that the High Court had already acted with generosity in granting an extended period of one month to deposit the remaining Zar-e-punjum. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the decision of the High Court. The key principle laid down is that discretionary relief regarding extension of time in pre-emption matters will not be interfered with lightly when the courts below have correctly determined the probable value.
- Whether the High Court can grant further time to deposit the Zar-e-punjum in a pre-emption suit during revision proceedings?
- Does a petition for leave to appeal lie against an order of the High Court extending the time to deposit pre-emption money?
- Are concurrent findings regarding the probable value of land in a pre-emption suit open to interference without substantial grounds?
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The petitioners had not deposited the probable value of the land in a pre- emption suit within time. The dispute was as to whether the amount fixed as the probable value was correct?- The Courts below have, after scrutiny, held that the amount fixed as the probable value was quite correct. However, the High Court, while finally' adjudicating upon the matter in revision, considered that the time given for depositing the said amount was short. Accordingly, while dismissing the revision petition, the petitioners were allowed to deposit the remaining Zar-e- punjum within the further period of one month from the date of the order. The said order of the High Court, passed in revision is questioned by this petition for leave to appeal.
2. ' The order impugned before us is not only correct but, indeed, the High Court has been very generous and sympathetic to the petitioners. There is absolutely no force in this petition, which is, accordingly, hereby dismissed.