1985 PLP 1700 (SCMR)
ABDUR RASHID and another — Petitioners Versus GHULAM MAULA and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1700 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUR RASHID and another — Petitioners Versus GHULAM MAULA and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1700 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1700 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1700 (SCMR) (ABDUR RASHID and another — Petitioners Versus GHULAM MAULA and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Riaz Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court with Maqbul Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th February, 1985.
- Riaz Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court with Maqbul Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 17-3-1979 in Civil Revision No. 908 of 1976). --Art. 185(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151 & O. VII, r.11--Rejection of plaint on ground of deficiency of court-fee--Such rejection sought on ground that though court-fee stamp was purchased within time specified by Court but was filed two days after such time- Plea rejected by Courts below and the High Court--Discretion vested in Courts found not improperly exercised--No interference was called for--Leave to appeal refused. Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan and others P L D 1984 S C 157 and Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan P L D 1984 S C 289 fol.
Judgment & Decree
Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan and others P L D 1984 S C 157 and Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan P L D 1984 S C 289 fol. Riaz Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court with Maqbul Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th February, 1985. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑After contest but ultimately conceding the plaintiff pre‑emptors were called upon to make up the deficiency in court‑fee by 9th of April, 1976. The court‑fee stamp was purchased within time but filed two days later. The objection of the petitioner for rejection of plaint was rejected by the trial Court on 21‑7‑1976. The revision petition was dismissed by the High Court observing that there is only a delay of two days in the filing. It held that the exercise of discretion by the trial Court was proper and did not require interference. Mr. Riaz Anwar the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the conduct of the plaintiff‑respondents examined in the context of the contest between the parties clearly appeared to be contumacious in the extreme. They had forfeited any claim to indulgence or exercise of discretion. They should have been penalised for it. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan and others P L D 1984 S C 157 and Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan P L D 1984 S C 289 and the rationale underlying, we consider this not to be a fit case for any further examination as a discretion vested in the Court has been exercised and found not to be improperly exercised. There is no question of further going into the merits of it. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. A.A. Leave refused.