1991 PLP 2333 (MLD)
KHANOO — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRAT and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 2333 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHANOO — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRAT and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 2333 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 2333 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 2333 (MLD) (KHANOO — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRAT and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rana Abdul Hameed for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XLI, R.1
Deficiency in court-fee on memorandum of appeal, opportunity to appellant for making good
Without calling upon party and allowing it an opportunity to make good deficit court-fee on memorandum of appeal, appeal could not be dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
O. XLI, R.1
Deficiency in court-fee on memorandum of appeal, opportunity to appellant for making good
Without calling upon party and allowing it an opportunity to make good deficit court-fee on memorandum of appeal, appeal could not be dismissed. Petitioner in person. Rana Abdul Hameed for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th June, 1991. Plaintiffs brought a civil suit against defendant-petitioner to recover possession of land in dispute after removal of Malba from it. Petitioner, apart from denying ownership of the plaintiffs, claimed adverse possession on the land in dispute. On 22-6-1977, the trial Court decreed tire suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Petitioner filed an appeal in the lower Appellate Court and paid ad valorem court-fee on Rs.2,000 on the memorandum of, appeal. Lower Appellate Court found that the petitioner was obliged to pay court-fee on Rs.2,400 and as he paid less amount of court-fee than was required to be paid, dismissed the appeal on 4-5-1980. It is evident from his judgment that he gave no time to the petitioner to pay the deficit court-fee though he asked for it. Against the order dismissing the appeal for want of payment of required court-fee, petitioner came up in revision to this Court. It was admitted on 24-5-1980 and meanwhile execution proceedings were stayed. It is settled statement of law that without calling upon the party and allowing it an opportunity to make good the deficit court-fee on the memorandum of appeal, appeal could not be dismissed. Therefore, the view taken on this point by learned Judge below could not be upheld. In this view, civil revision is bound to succeed. It is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned judgment and decree dated 4-5-1980 are set aside and the case is remanded to learned District Judge, Gujrat for deciding of the appeal afresh after allowing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant before him to pay the discovered deficiency in court-fee. Needless to observe, that it shall be open to learned District Judge either to hear the appeal himself or entrust it for hearing to any of the learned Additional District Judges in his District. There shall be no order as to costs in this Court. Records be returned to the Court of learned District Judge. Parties have been directed to appear before him on 30-6-1991. An attempt shall be made for an expeditious decision of the appeal. H.B.T./K-339/L Revision allowed.