1995SCMR911 (PLP)
ZULFIQAR ALI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. SAJIDA BEGUM‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995SCMR911 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Fazal Ilahi Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ZULFIQAR ALI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. SAJIDA BEGUM‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995SCMR911 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995SCMR911 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Fazal Ilahi Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995SCMR911 (PLP) (ZULFIQAR ALI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. SAJIDA BEGUM‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Iftikhar Ali Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th June, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 17‑10‑1992, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in RSA No. 112/1982). ‑‑‑‑O. VII, R. 11 & S. 149‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑ Deficient court‑fee and duty of Court‑‑‑Dismissal of suit for plaint being insufficiently stamped‑‑‑Issue of superior right of pre‑emption was, however, accepted by the Trial Court‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit was decreed by Appellate Court and such decree was affirmed by High Court in second appeal ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Trial Court had accepted the deficient court‑fee and requisite stamps were placed on record‑‑‑Trial Court, on the ratio of Siddique Khan's case (PLD 1984 SC 289), was bound to determine the exact amount of court‑fee and afford reasonable time to plaintiff to make up the deficiency‑‑‑Plaintiff had paid the proper court‑fee after final calculation‑‑‑Finding rendered by First Appellate Court and the High Court in decreeing plaintiff's 'suit being in accord with law did not warrant interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Rachappa Subrao Jadhey Desai v. Shidappa Venkatrao Jadhey Desai AIR 1918 PC 188 ref.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 17‑10‑1992.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent brought a suit for pre emption against the petitioners. The suit was contested and issues were framed. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaint was insufficiently stamped. On the other issues the superior right of the respondent was accepted. The appeal filed by the respondent was accepted by the District Judge, Jhang. The second appeal filed against the judgment of the learned District Judge was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Only one point was agitated before the High Court that, as the plaint was insufficiently stamped, the suit was properly dismissed. The learned Judge in Chambers, on the basis of the cases reported as Rachappa Subrao Judhey Desai v. Shidappa Venkatrao Jadhey Desai (AIR 1918 PC 188) and Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan (PLD 1984 SC 289) rejected the contention of the petitioners. The case on merits was not challenged before the High Court. The trial Court decided the case on merits in favour of the pre‑emptor. The learned District Judge did not concur with the finding of the trial Court on the issue of court fee and passed a decree for an amount of Rs.66,
000. It is an admitted fact that the deficient court‑fee was paid during the trial of the suit. The trial Court had accepted the deficient court‑fee and the requisite stamps were placed on record. As per decision of this Court in Siddique Khan's case the trial Court was bound to determine the exact amount of the court‑fee and afford reasonable time to the plaintiff to make up the deficiency. This has not been done. After final calculation the plaintiff had paid the proper court‑fee. No illegality has been committed by the Courts below.
3. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and the leave prayed for is refused. AA./Z‑176/S Leave refused.