1991 PLP 221 (SCMR)
SHAHRAH‑‑‑Appellant Versus ALLAH DAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 221 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, J |
| Parties | SHAHRAH‑‑‑Appellant Versus ALLAH DAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 221 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 221 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 221 (SCMR) (SHAHRAH‑‑‑Appellant Versus ALLAH DAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 5‑7‑1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No. 818‑D of 1981). (a) Punjab Pre‑emotion Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.15‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit for pre‑emotion was decreed by Trial Court‑‑‑Appellate Court rejected plaintiffs plaint on the ground of same having been filed with deficient court‑fee and plaintiff failing to supply deficiency within specified time and not seeking extension of time in ‑that regard‑‑‑High Court in revision upheld finding of Appellate Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine effect of judgment of Supreme Court in Siddique Khan's case reported as P L D 1984 S C 289, on the question of validity of impugned judgments. Siddique Khan's case PLD 1984 SC 289 rel. (b) Punjab Pre‑emotion Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.15‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185‑‑‑Deficiency in court‑fee‑‑‑Plaintiff was entitled as of right to at least one chance after determining amount of deficient court‑fee by Court‑‑‑That one chance having been denied to plaintiff, order of rejection of plaint for deficient court‑fee was not sustainable‑‑‑Additionally, purported exercise of discretionary power by Trial Court being unexceptionable, revisional and appellate judgments could not be sustained‑‑‑Case was remanded to Appellate Court for hearing of appeal on merits. JUDGMENT
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑This appeal, by a plaintiff/pre emptor, through leave of the Court is directed against the dismissal by the High Court, of his civil revision. The appellant's suit was decreed but the respondents' appeal was allowed and the plaint of the appellant was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. on a ground relating to payment of court‑fee. It was held that the plaint having been filed with deficient court‑fee, the plaintiff failed to supply the deficiency within the specified time nor an extension was sought in that regard, therefore, the deposit of the proper court‑fee after the period of limitation was of no avail to the appellant/plaintiff because by that time the suit, notwithstanding it having been filed within the period of limitation, had by virtue of late supply of the court‑fee, become time‑barred. The appellant's revision before the High Court failed due to similar reasons. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the effect of the judgment of this Court in the case of Siddique Khan (PLD 1984 SC 289) on the question of the validity of the impugned judgments. It is correct that the plaint was filed with deficiency in court‑fee and the plaintiff was also granted time to supply the deficiency but he having failed to make the deposit was allowed further time by the Court. This procedure was held by the Appellate Court as impermissible and accordingly it was further held that the suit of the plaintiff had become time‑barred. The High Court upheld the view notwithstanding the fact that the judgment of this Court in the case of Muhammad Nawaz Khan and another v. Makhdoom Syed Ghulam Mujtaba Shah and another PLD 1970 SC 37 was cited before it. The view taken by appellate Court and the Revisional Court‑‑‑The High Court has not been approved in the case of Siddique Khan. The trial Court having not granted the time to the plaintiff in accordance with law by determining the amount of deficient court‑fee, he was entitled as of right to at least one chance after such determination under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., if not more under other provisions, in the circumstances of this case. That one chance was not given to the appellant. And additionally, the purported exercise of discretionary power also being unexceptionable the revisional and the appellate judgments cannot be sustained. They are accordingly set aside. The case is remanded to the Appellate Court for hearing of the appeal on merits. A.A./S‑537/S Case remanded.