1986 PLP 1378 (SCMR)
ABDUL WAHID and others — Petitioners Versus Mian GHULAM HAIDER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1378 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah. JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL WAHID and others — Petitioners Versus Mian GHULAM HAIDER and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1378 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1378 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah. JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1378 (SCMR) (ABDUL WAHID and others — Petitioners Versus Mian GHULAM HAIDER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate with Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th March, 1986.
- Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate with Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. dated 24-9-1979 in Regular Second Appeal No. 253 of 1977).
Art 185(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), Ss. 4 and 15--Pre-emption suit--Deficient court-fee deposited by pre-emptor within time fixed by Court--Pre-emptor also making application that he would supply court-fee after getting statement of net profit--First Appellate Court as well as High Court interpreting order of Trial Court for deposit of deficient court-fee and arriving to conclusion that fee was deposited in time--Plaintiff /pre-emptor having a statutory right under O.VII, R. 11, Civil Procedure Code, for grant of time to supply deficient court-fee, judgment of High Court was unexceptionable--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate with Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 16th March, 1986. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 24‑9‑1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a vendee's Regular Second Appeal arising out of suit for pre‑emption was dismissed. The respondents had filed a suit for pre‑emption with deficient court‑fee. By the order dated 29‑9‑1966 they were allowed time up to 14‑11‑1966 to make up the deficiency in the court‑fee. The plaintiffs made up the deficiency by the said date. Despite that the plaint was rejected on the ground that the deficiency should have been made up by 12th of November, 1966, and not 14th of November, 1966. The first Appellate Court (and the High Court) interpretted the order dated 29‑9‑1966 as permitting the plaintiffs to supply the deficiency in court‑fee upto 14‑11‑1966. Accordingly the First Appellate Court set aside the order of rejection of the plaint and restored the suit. The High court dismissed petitioners' (vendees') Second Appeal against the First Appellate order, therefore, the vendees have now sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel has not disputed the fact that the date for supplying the deficiency in court‑fee was 14‑11‑1966 and not 12‑11‑1966. He, however, has contended that the suit was filed at the end of period of limitation and despite that proper court‑fee was not paid. Not only this the plaintiffs had made an application that they would supply the court‑fee after getting the statement of net profit. All this, according to the learned counsel could and should have been done earlier. The argument of the learned counsel runs counter to law laid down by this Court in the case of Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another P L D 1984 S C
289. The plaintiffs A had a statutory right under Order VII, Rule 11 for grant of time to supply the deficiency of court‑fee. The impugned judgments are un exceptionable. No justification has been made out for interference. Leave to `appeal accordingly, is refused. M.Y.H. Leave refused.