- On 21.2.2003 trial Court ordered to deposit 1/5th of consideration amount till next date of hearing otherwise it was observed that suit shall be dismissed and case was fixed for 21.3.2003 — On 3.3.2003 an application was moved for modification of order dated 21.2.2003, that instead of depositing 1/5th of consideration amount, plaintiff be allowed to furnish personal surety — The Court fixed the date for filing objection, ultimately the application was dismissed on 30.5.2003 but through the same order it extended the time for depositing 1/5th of consideration amount upto 6.6.2003 — There was no request for extension of time — The trial Court on 21.2.2003 ordered for depositing 1/5th of consideration amount till 21.3.2003, failing which it was ordered that suit shall stand dismissed — However the trial Court on 30.5.2003 rejected the application and extended the time for depositing 1/5th — Held: When the order was passed by the trial Court on 30.5.2003 for extension of time, the trial Court had become functus officio and had no jurisdictional competence whatsoever to pass an order for extension of time — On expiry of date fixed i.e., 21.3.2003, the suit stood dismissed automatically as the suit was dependant upon the deposit of 1/5th of consideration amount — The trial Court had no option but to dismiss the application but it wrongly extended the time for depositing 1/5th of consideration amount as it had become functus officio — Moreover, there was no prayer for further extension of time. Zulakha Khatoon v. Ch. Muhammad yasin & 5 others 2004 SCR 27 (A)
- S. 21 — These provisions arise out of a special statute which are mandatory in nature and the same are to be construed strictly — The right of pre-emption is a piratical right which deprives lawful owners to their right to purchase certain property on the basis of their right of prior purchase. Zulakha Khatoon v. Ch. Muhammad yasin & 5 others 2004 SCR 27 (B)
error: Content is protected !!