P L D 1994 Lahore 261 (PLP)
SAFDAR KHAN — ‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 2 others ‑‑‑ Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1994 Lahore 261 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Gul Zarin Kani, J |
| Parties | SAFDAR KHAN — ‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 2 others ‑‑‑ Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1994 Lahore 261 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1994 Lahore 261 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Gul Zarin Kani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1994 Lahore 261 (PLP) (SAFDAR KHAN — ‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 2 others ‑‑‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Harz Muhammad Hanif Zafar for Petitioner
- Muhammad Sarwar Chohan for Respondents,
- Date of hearing: 15th February, 1994
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 148, 149 and O.VII, R.11‑‑‑Default in payment of court‑fee‑‑‑Extension of time‑‑‑Plaintiff was required to make good, payment o court‑fee within specified period‑‑‑Plaintiff filing revision against said order but ultimately confining his request for extending the time for payment of deficit court‑fee‑‑‑High Court extending ,time for payment of required amount of court‑fee by a specified date‑‑‑Plaint, in default of payment of court fee by specified date would be liable to rejection iii terms of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another PLD 1984 SC 289 rel.
Judgment & Decree
This civil revision by the petitioner requires, decision of the question relating to playability of Court‑fee on the plaint of a sit for declaration filed in the trial Court. Respondents objected to the assessment of the plaint for purposes of court‑fee and jurisdiction. While deciding the application for temporary injunction, the trial Court assessed the value of the suit for purposes, of Court‑fee and jurisdiction at Rs.1,10,000 and called upon the plaintiff to make good the deficit Court‑fee within fifteen days from his order. Petitioner questioned the order of the trial Court in revision before the District Court at Kasur. Upon amendments to section 115, Civil P.C., revision petition was returned to the petitioner for its presentation in competent jurisdiction. Thereupon, the revision petition was filed in this Court. It was admitted to hearing on 15‑1‑1994. At the time of admission of the civil revision, learned counsel for the petitioner accepted the correctness of the order made by the trial Court regarding .quantum of Court‑fee payable on the plaint and confined his request for extending the time for payment of the deficit Court‑fee. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Record has also been examined. On the analogy of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another PLD 1984 SC 289 and the legal principle contained in sections 148 and 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the time for payment of the required amount of Court‑fee is extended till 9‑3‑1994. In default of payment of court‑fee by the due date by the petitioner, the plaint shall be liable to rejection under Order VII, rule 11 of Civil P.C. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs in this Court. Records shall be returned to the trial Court immediately. Parties shall appear before it on 21‑2‑1994. AA./S‑425/I Order accordingly.