SUBAH SADIQUE KHAN vs DISTRICT JUDGE, Mr. LUTAF ALI KHAN, D.G. Khan And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a pre-emption suit. The petitioner, a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit, repeatedly failed to deposit the required one-fifth price (Zar-i-Panjum) of the land in dispute by the court-ordered deadlines. Although the trial court granted extensions, the respondents successfully challenged these orders in a revision petition before the District Judge, leading to the dismissal of the petitioner's suit under the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The High Court subsequently declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction, citing the petitioner's conduct. The Supreme Court addressed whether it should interfere with the High Court's refusal to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. The Court held that since the High Court's decision was based on the exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction, and given the petitioner's conduct, there was no justification for interference. The petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that appellate courts will generally not interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal to grant relief in writ jurisdiction when based on the conduct of the party.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's refusal to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction based on the conduct of the petitioner?
- Does the failure to deposit the Zar-i-Panjum within the extended time period justify the dismissal of a pre-emption suit under the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
- Section 22(4), Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 24-10- 1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's/plaintiffs writ petition arising out of his failure in a pre-emption matter, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner had failed to deposit one-fifth price (Zar-i-Panjum) of the land in dispute by the date fixed in an order of the trial Court passed in that behalf. He sought an extension which was granted--- But he again failed to make the deposit by the due date. He again sought extension which was granted. This time, the petitioner made the deposit within due time. The respondents/ vendees filed a revision petition before the District Judge challenging the orders of the trial Court passed in favour of the petitioner regarding extension of time for deposit of the Zari-Panjum. This revision petition was allowed and the orders were set aside with consequential failure of the petitioner's suit under section 22(4) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The petitioner challenged the revisional order of the District Judge in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court which having been dismissed on the ground of conduct of the petitioner, he has now sought leave to appeal.
3. It is not denied that the grant of relief by the High Court in/ its writ jurisdiction is discretionay. A learned Single Judge in the High Court, after taking into consideration all the necessary elements in the circumstances of this case with regard to the conduct of the petitioner, declined to exercise that discretion. Even if it be assumed that there are some points in this case which might need consideration, l the impugned judgment being one having been passed by the High Court in its discretionary writ jurisdiction, we find no justification to interfere with the exercise of discretion against the petitioner due to his conduct. Therefore, this petition, is dismissed.