1985 PLP 873 (SCMR)
FAZAL SHAH and others‑‑Petitioners Versus EJAZ AHMAD USMAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 873 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | FAZAL SHAH and others‑‑Petitioners Versus EJAZ AHMAD USMAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 873 (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 873 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh 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 873 (SCMR) (FAZAL SHAH and others‑‑Petitioners Versus EJAZ AHMAD USMAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 10th October, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, r.11‑‑Default in payment of requisite court‑fee‑‑Plea that it was incumbent upon trial Court to reject plaint not accepted‑‑Principle laid down by Supreme Court, held, correctly applied‑‑High Court judgment being unexception able leave to appeal refused. Siddique Khan and others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and others P L D 1984 S C 289 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The first respondent filed a suit against the petitioners for pre‑emption of the suit‑land which was dismissed on the ground that the suit‑land was not pre‑emptable. Appeal against the judgment of the trial Court was dismissed but on a second appeal Lahore High Court remanded the case to the trial Court for decision on merits. In the second round of litigation, suit was decreed by the trial Court in plaintiff's favour, appeal filed by petitioners was dismissed and Lahore High Court also dismissed their revision application. They now seek leave to appeal. The only plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that it was incumbent upon the trial Court to reject the plaint of the suit under Order VII, rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure for the plaintiff had not paid the requisite court‑fees. This plea was examined in details by the High Court anal was rejected on the principles laid down by this Court in Siddique Khan and others v. .Abdul Shakur Khan and others P L D 1984 S C
289. We find that no exception can be taken with the judgment of the High A Court, for it has correctly applied the rule laid down by this Court on the facts of the present case. The petition is dismissed. M.I. Petition dismissed.