S1989SCMR961 (PLP)
SOHANRA — Appellant Versus RASHID AHMAD and six others — Respondents
| Citation | S1989SCMR961 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Usman Ali Shah, JJ. |
| Parties | SOHANRA — Appellant Versus RASHID AHMAD and six others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in S1989SCMR961 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case S1989SCMR961 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Usman Ali Shah, JJ..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: S1989SCMR961 (PLP) (SOHANRA — Appellant Versus RASHID AHMAD and six others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Sardar Shah Bukhari, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 19th April, 1988.
- S. Sardar Shah Bukhari, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 20-4-1980 of tilt-: Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Regular Second Appeal No. 265 of 1973).
Art.185(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11--Leave to appeal was granted to examine contention that question involved in case related to deficiency in court-fee in pre-emption suit had already stood decided in P L D 1983SC227;PLD1984SC157andPLD1984SC
289. Mst. Parveen v. Mst. Jamsheda Begum etc. P L D 1983 S C 227; Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan etc. P L D 1984 S C 157 and Sddique Khan.etc. v Abdul Shakur Khan etc. P L D 1984 S C 289 ref.
O.VI1, R.11--Deficiency in court-fee--First Appellate Court` on respondent's appeal found that although appellant had supplied deficiency in court-fee within short time after filing of suit yet by that time it had become time-barred- Appellant-plaintiff was entitled to one chance to make up deficiency in court-fee which he availed and made up the same thus question of limitation was not relevant--Judgments of First Appellate Court and Second Appellate Court, held. were not maintainable in circumstances and were set aside. Mst. Parveen v. Mst. Jamsheda Begum etc. P L D 1983 S C 227: Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan etc. P L D 1984 S C 157 and Siddique Khan etc. v. Abdul Shakur Khan etc. P L D 1984 S C 289 rel. Respondents: Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
Mst. Parveen v. Mst. Jamsheda Begum etc. P L D 1983 S C 227: Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan etc. P L D 1984 S C 157 and Siddique Khan etc. v. Abdul Shakur Khan etc. P L D 1984 S C 289 rel. S. Sardar Shah Bukhari, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant. Respondents: Ex parte. Date of hearing: 19th April, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against Judgment, dated 20‑1‑1980 of the Lahore High Court; whereby appellant's regular civil second appeal, arising out of a pre‑emption decree passed by the trial Court in his favour but set aside in Ist appeal, was dismissed.
2. Objection was raised by the defendant/vendee side regarding deficiency of court‑fee paid by the appellant. It was overruled and decree was passed in appellant's favour. The Ist appellate Court, on respondents appeal held that although the appellant had supplied the deficiency within a short time after filing of the suit, yet by that date it had become time‑barred. Hence the decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed. The High Court having upheld the Ist appellate judgment on 20‑4‑1980, leave to appeal was granted to examine the following arguments of the learned counsel:‑ "that the legal question involved in this case relates to deficiency in court -fee in a pre‑emption suit and that the question arising in this case already stands decided in Mst. Parveen v. Mst. Jamsheda Begum etc. P L D 1983 S C 227; Shahna Khan v. Auha Khan etc. P L D 1984 S C 157 and Siddique Khan etc. v. Abdul Shakur Khan etc. P L D 1984 S C
289. In view of the above submissions leave is granted in this case."
3. The respondents side has chosen not to appear. They are, therefore, proceeded ex parte. The learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated‑ the argument' advanced at the leave stage. The afore noted latest judgments of this Court support his submission. The plaintiff/appellant was entitled to at least one chance to make up the deficiency in court‑fee. He availed of this opportunity and made up the deficiency. The question of limitation, as held by this Court m the cited case, did not arise. The Ist appellate and High Court Judgments, on this point cannot be upheld. This appeal, therefore, has to be allowed. The impugned judgments and decrees are set aside. There shall be no order as to cost. M.Y.H./S‑252/S Appeal allowed.