ISMAIL vs ABDUL AZIZ And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts rejecting a plaint in a suit for possession by pre-emption due to the pre-emptor's failure to deposit the requisite one-fifth of the pre-emption amount within the stipulated time. The core legal question was whether an inference of implied extension of time for depositing the amount could be drawn when the deposit was made significantly later than the deadline set by the trial court. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the lower courts rejecting the plea of implied extension was correct, thereby upholding the dismissal of the suit and the petition. The key principle laid down is that failure to comply with a mandatory deposit order in pre-emption suits without a formal or validly inferred extension of time results in the rejection of the plaint.
- Whether an inference of implied extension of time for depositing the pre-emption amount can be raised when the deposit is made after the expiry of the deadline fixed by the trial court?
- Does the failure to deposit the 1/5th amount within the stipulated time warrant the rejection of the plaint in a suit for possession by pre-emption?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--In a suit for possession by pre-emption the pre-emptor was directed to deposit the 1/5th amount by 4th October, 1965 The amount, however, was deposited on 28th October, 1965. The trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that its order had not been complied with. On appeal before the Additional District Judge it was contended that in the circumstances of this case an inference could be raised that the trial Court had, by implication, extended the period of the from 4th October, 1965 to 28th October, 1965. This inference, it was submitted, arose if both the orders dated 4-10-1965 and 28-10-1965 were read with together. The learned Additional District Judge, however, did not accept this submission holding that no case of implied extension was made out. This conclusion was upheld on second appeal by the High Court.
2. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. After hearing Mr. S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the view taken by the Courts below is correct and no ground exists for interfering with it.
4. This petition must, accordingly, fail and is dismissed hereby.