AKBAR ALI vs BAGH DIN And Other
The petitioner, a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his first appeal by the Lahore High Court. The trial court had decreed the suit on condition that the balance sale price be deposited by a specific date, failing which the suit would stand dismissed. The stipulated date and the subsequent days being holidays and the presiding officer being on leave, the petitioner applied for an extension of time on the first available working day, which was refused on the ground that the court had become functus officio. The core legal question was whether the time for depositing pre-emption money could be extended or computed under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act when intervening holidays prevented deposit on the due date, and whether the trial court remained functus officio. The Supreme Court held that the petition was meritless because the petitioner failed to deposit the amount on the reopening day and instead sought an extension of time, which the court lacked jurisdiction to grant once functus officio. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Whether a trial court becomes functus officio after passing a pre-emption decree with a default clause for depositing the sale price?
- Can the benefit of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act be claimed when a party applies for an extension of time rather than depositing the amount on the next working day?
- Does a court retain jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money after the expiry of the deadline fixed in the decree?
- Section 9, General Clauses Act 1897
- Order XX Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J. --The petitioner, a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 4-3-1979 whereby a first appeal filed by him, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was initially successful in the civil Court in obtaining a decree of possession in following terms:-- "It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and the same is decreed in his favour and against the defendants vendees in the sale price of Rs.1,04,000. The plaintiff has already deposited Rs.20,800 as Zare-Panjum. He shall deposit the balance amount of sale price of Rs.83,200 upto 5-2- 1977 failing which his suit shall stand dismissed. As the plaintiff did not offer the total sale price to the defendants vendees he is not held entitled to any costs of the suit."
3. It appears that the 5th of February, 1977 was declared a holiday. 6th was a closed holiday being Sunday. On 7-2-1977 the learned Civil Judge was on leave and on 8-2-1977 an application was made to the Presiding Officer seeking extension of the for making the deposit which was refused on the ground that he had after passing the decree become functus officio. An appeal to the High Court was taken where the view that the Court had become functus officio to grant extension in the was upheld.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner invoked before us section 9 of the General Clauses Act read with Order XX, rule 14 of the C.P.C. For claiming a right of depositing the amount on 8-2-1977.
5. Besides, it is contended that he had a good ground for being excused in the matter. The fact that the petitioner had applied for extension of the when the Court had become functus officio is not in dispute. It had become functus officio in view of this Court's decision in Shah Wali v. Ghulam Din alias Gaman and another PLD 1966 SC 983. The benefit of section 9 of the General Clauses Act could be claimed or extended only if the petitioner had made a prayer not for extending the the for deposit but for depositing the amount or had deposited the amount on 7-2-1977, In the circumstances of the case, we consider that it is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.