MUHAMMAD TAJ and another vs Subedar MUHAMMAD RASHEED
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the trial court decreed the suit for possession, conditional upon the petitioners depositing the balance sale price by a specific date, failing which the suit would be dismissed. The petitioners failed to deposit the amount by the deadline, yet the land was subsequently mutated in their favor years later. The respondent challenged this execution, seeking annulment of the mutation. The trial court initially dismissed the respondent's application, but the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, a ruling affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court addressed whether a pre-emption decree remains valid when the mandatory deposit is not made within the stipulated time. The Court held that in the absence of a valid extension of time granted by a competent forum, the failure to deposit the pre-emption money by the deadline renders the decree void and results in the automatic dismissal of the suit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that compliance with Order XX, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is mandatory for the survival of a pre-emption decree.
- Does a pre-emption suit stand automatically dismissed if the pre-emption money is not deposited within the time fixed by the court?
- Can a pre-emption decree be executed if the condition regarding the deposit of the sale price has not been met?
- Is a formal extension of time required from a competent forum to validate a deposit made after the deadline set in a pre-emption decree?
- Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XX Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioners' suit for possession through pre-emption was decreed by a Civil Judge First Class, Kahuta. The sale price was fixed at Rs,4,000 and the petitioners were directed to deposit the balance sale price, after deducting the amount of Zar-e-Punjam, before 4- 12-1977 failing which the suit was to be deemed to have been dismissed. The deposit, however, was made on 4-12-1977 and not before 4-12-1977 as directed by the Court.
2. ' Notwithstanding the above, the suit land was, thereafter, mutated in favour of the pre-emptor on 29-12-1980 in execution of the decree of preemption. Some 5 years later, however, the respondent filed an application under section 47 Civil Procedure Code for annulment of the effects of execution and for avoidance of the mutation. On 29-3-1985, he also moved an application for condonation of delay. These applications were dismissed by the learned Civil Judge but on an appeal the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 13-12-1986 reversed the decision of the trial Court. The last mentioned order of the learned Additional District Judge was affirmed by the High Court on a revision. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard Mirza Anwar Baig, learned counsel for the petitioners, but are inclined to agree with the view taken by the High Court that in the absence of a valid extension of time by the competent forum after the time for payment/deposit of pre-emption money had run out and the amount not deposited in time, the pre-emption decree became void and the pre-emption suit stood automatically dismissed on account of the provisions of Order XX, Rule 14, C.P.C.
4. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN Versus REHMAT ALI 1993 PLD 836
- RASHID AEMAD vs MUMTAZ HUSSAIN and others 1991 MLD 1608