ALI ASGHAR And Another vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN And Other
The petitioners filed a suit for pre-emption which was decreed by the trial court on 21-10-1978, requiring the deposit of the purchase money by 19-11-1978, failing which the suit would stand dismissed. The petitioners challenged the decretal amount in appeal before the Additional District Judge, who extended the time for depositing the purchase money and subsequently ordered that the deposit might be withheld until further orders. Although the petitioners eventually deposited the money, they later withdrew their appeal due to a deficiently stamped memorandum. When they subsequently sought to execute the pre-emption decree, the executing court, the appellate court, and the High Court in revisional jurisdiction all held that the suit stood dismissed due to non-compliance with the original deposit deadline. The petitioners sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether the time for depositing pre-emption money can be validly extended by an appellate court and whether non-compliance with the original deadline results in the dismissal of the suit. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention regarding compliance with the extended time period requires formal examination.
- Can an appellate court extend the time for depositing the purchase money in a pre-emption decree?
- Does failure to deposit pre-emption money within the original trial court deadline result in the automatic dismissal of the suit?
- Is an executing court justified in refusing to execute a pre-emption decree when deposit timelines were modified during appellate proceedings?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioners filed a suit for pre-emption. It was decreed on 21-10-1978 and they were directed to deposit the purchase money before 19-11-1978. In the event of their failure to make the deposit their suit was to stand dismissed. They preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge challenging the amount which they had been called upon to deposit. On 18-11-1978 the Additional District Judge admitted the appeal to regular hearing and adjourned it to 17-12-1978.
He also extended the time for the deposit of the purchase money till that date. On 17-12-1978 he again adjourned the hearing and further directed that the petitioners might not deposit the purchase money till further orders. Nevertheless, the petitioners deposited the purchase money on 18-12-1978.
2. When the appeal came up for hearing it was discovered that the memorandum had been deficiently stamped. Instead of making up the deficiency the petitioners withdrew the appeal.
Subsequently, they filed an application for execution of the decree. An objection was raised on behalf of the vendees that as the petitioners had not deposited the purchase money by the date specified in the decree of the trial Court their suit stood dismissed in terms thereof and as such the question of its execution did not arise. This objection found favour with the Executing Court and it dismissed the application for execution. Its order was upheld by the Additional District Judge in appeal and by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. It is contended in support of this petition that after the petitioners had deposited the purchase money within the period extended by the District Judge it could not be said that there had been a non-compliance of the terms of the decree; as such the executing Court ought not to have declined to execute the decree. This contention needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
Security for costs in the sum of Rs.2000/-. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any.