1990 PLP 1638 (SCMR)
and others‑‑Appellants Versus YASIN and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1638 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal ZuIlah, CJ. and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, J |
| Parties | and others‑‑Appellants Versus YASIN and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1638 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1638 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal ZuIlah, CJ. and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1638 (SCMR) (and others‑‑Appellants Versus YASIN and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ghulam Muhammad Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Kh. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 13‑10‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in R.S.A. No.948 of 1976). (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 149 & O.VII, R.11(c)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine validity of impugned judgment in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Siddique Khan's case reported as P L D 1984 S C
289. Siddique Khan's case P L D 1984 S C 289 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S.149 & O.VII, R.11(c)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185‑‑Plaintiff's suit was decreed by Trial Court‑‑Appellate Court rejected plaintiff's plaint for having failed to comply with the direction of Court in making good the deficiency of court‑fee within time without any reasonable excuse‑‑Admittedly no order was passed by Trial Court to supply a determined amount of court‑fee, which was essential for the application of penal provisions contained in O.VII, R.II, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, whereunder Appellate Court had rejected plaintiff's plaint‑‑Appellate Court's order was not sustainable in view of Supreme Court's judgment in Siddique Khan's case reported as P L D 1984 SC 289‑‑Plaintiff was entitled to at least one mandatory chance for deposit of court‑fee after the exact amount of deficiency was determined by Court‑‑Requirements of law having not been observed impugned judgments were set aside‑‑Case was remanded to First Appellate Court for hearing appeal afresh on merits.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULIAH, CJ. ‑‑‑This appeal through leave of the Court by the plaintiff in a suit for pre‑emption is directed against the judgment of the High Court: whereby his Regular Second Appeal was dismissed on consideration of questions relatable to payment of court‑fee. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the validity of the impugned judgment in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Siddique Khan P L D 1984 S C
289. In this round the suit was decreed by the trial Court but the respondents' appeal was accepted on the ground that "there was no legal hitch for the respondent (the appellant (?) institution of the present suit or afterwards by the time which the Court had given to him but he failed to comply with the direction of the Court without any reasonable excuse". Admittedly no order was passed by the trial Court to supply the court‑fee, after making determination of the amount of court -fee which, as was held in the case of Siddique Khan, was essential for the application of the penal provisions contained in Order 7, Rule II, C.P.C. whereunder the appellate Court rejected the appellant's plaint. On appellant's R.SA. a learned Judge in the High Court relying on two cases; one of 1961 of Bughdad‑ul‑Jadid and the other of 1949 from Lahore upheld the appellate judgment. The view taken by the learned appellate Courts, as held in the case of Siddique Khan was not sustainable. Appellant was, as ruled therein entitled to at least one mandatory chance for deposit of court‑fee after the exact amount of deficiency had been determined by the Court. This requirement of law not having been observed the impugned judgments are set aside. The case is remanded to the first appellate Court for hearing the appeal afresh on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. AA./A‑776/S Case remanded.