ALLAH BAKHSH vs UMAR and another
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute concerning the execution of pre-emption decrees. The petitioner, having purchased land in 1979, faced pre-emption suits which were initially decreed. Following appellate proceedings and a Supreme Court judgment, the petitioner was awarded an additional sum as the price of the disputed land. The respondents failed to deposit this additional amount within the prescribed time, leading to the dismissal of the pre-emption suits. Instead of raising objections during the execution proceedings, the petitioner filed a separate suit for a declaration that the pre-emption suits stood dismissed for non-compliance with the relevant procedural law. The High Court rejected the plaint, holding that the matter had attained finality through the Supreme Court judgment and could not be re-litigated via a separate suit. The Supreme Court affirmed this, holding that once a matter is adjudicated by the apex court, it is not open to interpretation or challenge through a fresh suit. The petition was dismissed as the court found no legal infirmity in the High Court's judgment.
- Can a party file a separate suit to interpret or challenge the finality of a Supreme Court judgment?
- Does the failure to deposit the additional price in a pre-emption suit within the time prescribed under Order XX Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 result in the dismissal of the suit?
- Is a separate suit maintainable for matters that should be addressed during execution proceedings?
- Order XX Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Petitioner purchased land in 1979 for Rs,1,15,620 and in that connection, two pre-emption suits were filed by respondents herein, which were decreed. Petitioner filed appeals, which were allowed partially remanding the cases for assessment of market-value. After failure of Revision in the High Court, petitioner approached Supreme Court and his appeals were accepted and he was allowed Rs,30,000 more as price of the disputed land in addition to the amount already granted by the trial Court.
2. Respondents did not deposit additional amount within time and in the result suits stood dismissed. Instead of filing objections in the execution proceedings, petitioner filed suit for declaration that suits of pre-emption stood dismissed for non-compliance under Order, 20 Rule 14 C.P.C. Plaint was rejected against which appeal and revision have been dismissed. High Court has rightly held that the case attained finality after judgment of the Supreme Court, which is not open to interpretation by a separate suit. Finding no flaw or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment, leave is refused and petition is dismissed as lacking merits.
Cited by 1 case
- GUL USMAN and others vs Mst. AHMERO and others 1996 SCMR 369