ABDUL AZIZ vs AZIZ UL HAQ
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision by the High Court, which upheld the trial court's finding that the pre-emptor had made a valid deposit of the pre-emption money. The respondent filed a suit for possession through pre-emption and was ordered by the trial court under section 22(1) of the Pre-emption Act to deposit one-fifth of the probable value of the land. Although the actual physical deposit into the bank occurred one day after the extended deadline due to the bank closing early, the respondent had obtained the challan and made a bona fide effort to deposit the amount within the stipulated time. The core legal question was whether the delayed physical deposit constituted a default under the statute. The Supreme Court held that the respondent made a valid tender and sufficient compliance with the court's order by attempting to deposit the amount in time, thus committing no default. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Does a failure to physically deposit pre-emption money on the exact date due to early bank closure constitute a default when a valid effort to deposit was made?
- Whether obtaining a challan and attempting to make a deposit within time amounts to sufficient compliance with a court order under the Pre-emption Act?
- Section 22(1), Pre-emption Act
- Section 2(4), Pre-emption Act
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.--The respondent filed a suit for possession of the land in dispute by pre- emption. The learned trial Court fixed the case for 24th May 1968, and passed an order under section 22(1) of the Pre-emption Act requiring the respon--dent to deposit 1/5th of the probable value of the land in dispute before the 24th May 1968. The respondent failed to deposit the amount.
2. On the 23rd May 1968, he moved an application for extension of time. The learned trial Court extended time up to 31 May 1968. The amount was not even deposited on the 31st ---May 1968, and instead the amount was deposited on the 1st June 1968. The petitioner, thereupon, raised an objection that the suit was liable to be dismissed under section 2(4) of the Act as the amount had not been deposited in time. The respondent filed an affidavit on the 12th June 1968, stating that he could not deposit the amount on the 31st May 1968, as he went to the Bank at 11 a.m. And the Bank had closed at 10 a.m. He also filed a Bank certificate to the effect that on the 31st May 1968,-the Bank was closed at 10-30 a.m. And that the respondent had come to deposit the amount. The learned trial Court passed an order dated the 19th June 1968, holding that the deposit of Zar-a punjam on the 1st June 1968, was within time. The petitioner challenged this order in revision before the High Court which was dismissed on the 1st March 1972. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the respondent had made a valid tender to the Courtly by getting the challan passed and by making an effort to makes the deposit within time. The learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in observing that this wasst sufficient compliance of the order dated the 23rd May 1968, and no question of any extension arose. In our opinion, the respondent has not committed any default. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 5 cases
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs MUHAMMAD AMIN 2002 CLC 545
- IMTIAZ ALI SHAH vs MUHAMMAD ALI and 6 others 2001 YLR 679
- Syed IMTIAZ ALI SHAH vs MUHAMMAD ALI And Other K.L.R. 2002 Revenue Cases 90
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE And Other 1989 MLD 3524
- ATA MUHAMMAD AND Another vs Malik NOOR MUHAMMAD AND 6 Other 1978 PLD Lahore 453