2009 PLP 1012 (YLR)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector and 2 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR AHMAD — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1012 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar, J |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector and 2 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR AHMAD — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1012 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 1012 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1012 (YLR) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector and 2 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR AHMAD — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rizwan Mushtaq, Asstt. A.-G. for Petitioners.
- Nemo. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
O. VII, R.2 & S.96
Filing appeal without payment of the court-fee-Suit filed by the plaintiff against defendants for recovery of amount was decreed by the Trial Court
Defendants filed appeal against judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court without payment of the court-fee-Appellate Court without directing or enabling the defendants to make up the deficiency in the payment of the court fee had dismissed appeal through impugned order
Opportunity should be provided to the appellants to make up the deficiency
Allowing revision petition against order of the Appellate Court, impugned order was set aside and by High Court with the result that appeal would be deemed to be pending before the Appellate Court and two months time was granted to the appellants to pay the requisite court fee. Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and 2 others PLD 1984 SC 289 rel.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
As per report of the Process Server, the respondent has refused to accept service, therefore, he is proceeded ex parte.
2. The respondent filed a suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs.48,990 against the petitioners, which was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 5-1-2002. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal, but without payment of the court-fee. The learned appellate Court without directing or enabling the petitioners to make up the deficiency in the payment of court-fee has dismissed their appeal through the impugned order dated 4-5-2002.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon PLD 1984 SC 289 (Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and 2 others) states that an opportunity should have been given to the petitioners to make up the deficiency and, therefore, the impugned order cannot sustain.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and find his arguments to be valid when tested on the touchstone of the above noted dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court. Resultantly, by allowing this petition, the impugned order is set aside; the appeal of the petitioners shall be deemed pending before the learned appellate Court and they are granted two months time to pay the requisite court-fee. H.B.T./P-5/L Petition allowed.