MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and another vs ALLAH DITTA and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the vendees against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed their first appeal and upheld the lower appellate court's order condoning the delay in the deposit of Zare Panjum by the pre-emptors under section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The trial court had initially rejected the plaint for non-deposit of Zare Panjum within time, but the District Court set aside this order on the ground that the pre-emptors' application for extension of time was not disposed of prior to the target date, thereby depriving them of an opportunity to make the deposit. The Supreme Court considered the old nature of the matter, noting the possibility that the suit had already been decided on merits. The Court held that the approach of the lower appellate court and the High Court regarding the extension of time was based on sound reasoning. The Supreme Court concluded that a decree passed in favour of the respondents should not be set aside merely on the ground that the delay ought not to have been condoned, and accordingly dismissed the petition.
- Whether the first appellate court is justified in condoning the delay in the deposit of Zare Panjum under section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act when the trial court failed to dispose of the extension application before the target date?
- Should an existing decree passed in favour of the pre-emptors be set aside merely on the ground that the First Appellate Court should not have condoned the delay in the deposit of the Zare Panjum?
- Section 22, Punjab Pre-emption Act
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by vendees/defendants side from Judgment dated 9-11-1980 of the Lahore High Court whereby petitioners' first Appeal against order passed by the lower appellate Court under section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act condoning the delay in the deposit of Zare Panjam by the respondents/plaintiffs/ pre-emptors side, was dismissed.
2. The pre-emptors' plaint was rejected for non-deposit of the Zare Panjum within time. Their appeal before the District Court succeeded on the ground that their application for extension of time for the deposit of Zare Panjum was not disposed of by the trial Court before the target date and thus they were deprived of the opportunity to make the deposit within the specified time. The respondents' plea having been accepted, the order of the trial Court was set aside and the case was remanded for fresh decision on merits.
3. It is an old matter. There was no stay order by this Court. A possibility that the suit has already been decided, cannot be ruled out. In case a decree has been passed in favour of the respondents-side, it should not now be set aside merely on the ground that the First Appellate Court should not have condoned the delay in the deposit of the Zare Panjum.
4. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that the approach of the learned first appellate Court and of the High Court regarding extension of time under section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act is based on sound reasoning and is thus unexceptionable. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.