2004 PLP 119 (SCMR)
ABDUL AZIZ — Petitioner Versus Malik LAL KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 119 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Rana Bhagwandas and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL AZIZ — Petitioner Versus Malik LAL KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 119 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 119 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Rana Bhagwandas and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 119 (SCMR) (ABDUL AZIZ — Petitioner Versus Malik LAL KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain Naqshbandi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th June, 2002.
- 2. We have heard learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and found that the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court that the conduct of the respondents was not contumacious in making up deficiency in the court-fee, as order passed by the trial Court for making up deficiency in the court-fee was challenged in revision petition before District Court, in which stay order was passed. After return of the revision petitions, it was presented before the High Court and the High Court too passed a stay order in the first round of litigation. However, revision petition was dismissed as time-barred on 22-2-2000.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 16-10-2001 passed in R.F.A. No.363 of 2000).
S. 148
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Enlargement of time for deposit of court-fee and filing of amended plaint
High Court enlarged the time and directed the respondent to do the needful within time so enlarged
Petitioner had also filed a suit for declaration of his rights in the property in dispute
High Court had rightly found that it was a fit case for enlargement of time to file amended plaint and making up deficiency of court-fee
Supreme Court declined to interfere with the time enlarged by High Court
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.
This petition is directed against judgment of a Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 16-10-2001 through which regular first appeal filed by the respondents against order of the trial Court of rejection of plaint of their suit has been accepted and they have been granted 15 days time to amend the plaint and make up deficiency in the court-fee.
2. We have heard learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and found that the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court that the conduct of the respondents was not contumacious in making up deficiency in the court-fee, as order passed by the trial Court for making up deficiency in the court-fee was challenged in revision petition before District Court, in which stay order was passed. After return of the revision petitions, it was presented before the High Court and the High Court too passed a stay order in the first round of litigation. However, revision petition was dismissed as time-barred on 22-2-2000.
3. The petitioner-defendant made an application on 10-6-2000 before the Trial Court seeking rejection of the plaint as the respondents, despite rejection of their revision petition by the High Court did not make up deficiency in the court-fee. Respondents also made an application on 19-6-2000 for enlargement of time to file amended plaint and making up deficiency in the court-fee, which was rejected and that of the petitioner for rejection of the plaint was accepted through order, dated 27-6-2000. This order was challenged before the High Court in regular first appeal, which has been accepted through judgment, dated 16-10-2001 against which leave is sought.
4. In the facts and circumstances of this case and particularly in view of the fact that petitioner had also filed a suit for declaration of his rights in the property in dispute, it was rightly held by the High Court that it was a fit case for enlargement of time to file amended plaint and A making up deficiency of court-fee. No ground is made out for interference in the impugned judgment. Resultantly, this petition being without any merits is hereby dismissed and leave refused. M.H./A-358/S Petition dismissed.