PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

TARIQ ZUBAIR KHAN vs Mst — 2024 SCMR 1218 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Citation
2024 SCMR 1218 SUPREME-COURT
Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year
2024
Reporter
SCMR
Parties
TARIQ ZUBAIR KHAN vs Mst
Subject matter
Civil

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

TARIQ ZUBAIR KHAN VS Mst. TABASSUM KHAN O. XXI., Rr. 84 & 90---Suit for possession through partition---Execution of decree---Auction proceedings---Objection petition---Pursuant to preliminary decree, the Trial Court appointed a Court Auctioneer to conduct an auction of the subject house---Petitioner (one of the legal heirs) filed objections on the report submitted by the Court Auctioneer, but the same was dismissed on account of petitioner's failure to deposit the 20% (twenty percent) of the sum realized at the sale---Petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the High Court which also met the fate of dismissal---Plea of petitioner was that his objection application was made under Order XXI, Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("C.P.C.") but it was decided within the limits of Order XXI, Rule 90---Validity---Such plea of petitioner was not tenable in eyes of law---It is clear from a bare reading of Order XXI, Rule 84, C.P.C. that the purchaser is required by law to immediately pay twenty-five percent of purchase money and there is no word that suggests objections to auction proceedings may be filed by the owner/legal heirs of the owner of the subject property under this rule---Moreover, petitioner in this case, was not a purchaser but his predecessors in interest were the owner of the subject property, hence, he could not have invoked Order XXI, Rule 84, C.P.C.---Trial Court deemed the objections filed by petitioner as an application under Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C.---Trial Court directed the petitioner to deposit twenty percent of the sale proceeds but he failed to do so---Neither he made any application for an extension of time nor showed any willingness to deposit such an amount---Trial Court has rightly observed that there had been an inordinate delay in the execution of the decree and six years had already elapsed---Petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English