1993 PLP 1524 (CLC)
HEDAYATULLAH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM SARWAR and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1524 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HEDAYATULLAH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM SARWAR and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1524 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1524 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1524 (CLC) (HEDAYATULLAH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM SARWAR and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Aziz Ahmad Malik for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Aslam Rajput for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Aziz Ahmad Malik for Petitioners. Muhammad Aslam Rajput for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22th September, 1992. This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 8‑12‑1991, by which a learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar, dismissed the appeal of the petitioners for the non‑deposit of process fee for the second time.
2. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that sufficient money was given for the deposit of process fee to the clerk of the lawyer but it appears that he misappropriated it and did not deposit the process fee with the Ahlmad of the appellate Court and for that reason the appeal was dismissed.
3. The revision has been opposed on behalf of the respondents on the ground that the conduct of the petitioners was not only negligent before the appellant Court but their evidence had also been closed under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C. by the trial Court and during the pendency of the appeal they twice did not deposit the process fee.
4. With the remission of court‑fee in the suits up to the valuation of Rs.25,000, the process fee of one or two rupees and its non‑deposit by the litigants has become almost immaterial and adverse orders should not be passed on that account on the basis of certain provisions of the C.P.C. of penal nature. However, if the learned Additional District Judge thought that it was very necessary for the petitioners to have deposited the process fee, he could, instead of throwing out his appeal arising out of a suit involving the property of sufficient amount, direct his office to issue process to the opposite party and recover the process fee from the petitioner or his counsel on the next date of hearing. In any case the impugned order is not sustainable. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the petitioners shall be re‑decided by the learned Additional District Judge in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge on 8‑10‑1992, who may dispose of the appeal himself or may entrust it to any of the Additional District Judges at Bhakkar. H.B.T./H‑83/L Revision petition accepted.