| Case ID |
7392c3f7-a442-4b04-b400-71c2254b932c |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
W.P. No. 13G9 of 2004/BWP |
| Decision Date |
Jul 12, 2004 |
| Hearing Date |
Jul 12, 2004 |
| Decision |
The case involves the interpretation of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, specifically regarding the deposit of Zar-e-Soim in a pre-emption suit. The Lahore High Court held that a defective order by the lower court, which did not specify a date for the deposit of Zar-e-Soim, could not prejudice the petitioner's rights. The court emphasized that no litigant should be deprived of their rights due to the acts of the court. The court upheld the trial court's decision allowing the petitioner to deposit the amount beyond the originally stated time frame, as the absence of a fixed date rendered the penalty of dismissal inapplicable. The court concluded that the order of the Additional District Judge, which declared the trial court's decision illegal, was itself unlawful, and thus the petition was accepted. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case decided by the Lahore High Court, the court addressed critical issues surrounding the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The main legal question revolved around the interpretation of the law's provisions regarding the deposit of Zar-e-Soim in pre-emption suits. The court determined that the lack of a specified date for the deposit in the lower court's order constituted a significant omission, which could not result in a dismissal of the petitioner's case. This ruling reinforces the principle that litigants should not suffer due to procedural errors by the courts and highlights the importance of clear orders to ensure fair access to justice. The decision also reiterates that the court must act in a manner that protects the rights of all parties involved, particularly in cases concerning property rights and pre-emptive claims. The case is vital for practitioners in property law, as it clarifies the procedural obligations of courts under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, ensuring that litigants are afforded their rights without undue penalty for administrative oversights. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
SH. HAKIM ALI, J.
|
| Lawyers |
Rana Sarclar Ahmad,
Mr. Mumtaz Hussain Bazrni
|
| Petitioners |
Mst. SAID BIBI alias SHEED BIBI
|
| Respondents |
5 others,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BAHAWALPUR
|
| Citations |
2004 SLD 3600,
2004 PLJ 1789
|
| Other Citations |
NLR 2004 UC 321 (Muhammad Ilyas, etc. versus Munshi Khan),
KLR 2001 SC 196 (Ghulam Hassan vs. Jamshaid Ali and others),
1995 CLC 957 (Jamshaid Ali and 2 others vs. Ghulam Hassan),
2003 YLR 1471 (Haji Muhammad Sharif vs. Chaudhry Khan and 2 others),
2003 CLC 1434 (Mahram Khan vs. Fateh Khan and 3 others),
1995 SCMR 135 (Habibullah Khan vs. Amir Zaman and 9 others)
|
| Laws Involved |
Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991,
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
|
| Sections |
24(1),
24(2),
199
|