P L D 1982 Lahore 90 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA SULTANA ETc.‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1982 Lahore 90 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ryas, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA SULTANA ETc.‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1982 Lahore 90 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1982 Lahore 90 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Muhammad Ryas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1982 Lahore 90 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD BASHIR‑Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA SULTANA ETc.‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Abbas for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ ‑‑ O. XXXIII, r. 5(b)‑Application for permission to sue as pauper Petitioner, in application itself alleging readinest to pay balance of sale price at time of execution of sale deed ‑ Civil 'Judge finding petitioner to be not a pauper and rejecting his application summarily without waiting for report from Deputy Commissioner‑Held, not necessary in circumstances, for Civil Judge to have waited for report of Deputy Commissioner.
Judgment & Decree
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that on the making of the ‑application by the petitioner the learned Civil Judge had asked for the report of the Collector but‑before his report was received, he had decided to reject the application. The argument raised by learned counsel was that the learned Civil Judge could not reject the application without obtaining the report of the Collector.
3. According to rule 5 of Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, an application for permission to sue as a pauper can be rejected by the Court‑‑ (a) where it is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by rules 2 and 3, or (b) where the applicant is not a pauper, or (c) where be has, within two months next before the presentation of the application, disposed of any property fraudulently or in order to be able to apply for permission to sue as a pauper, or (d) where his allegations do not show a cause of action, or ' (e) where he leas entered into any agreement with reference to the subject‑matter of the proposed suit under which any other person 'has obtained an interest in such subject‑matter. It seems that in the instant case, the learned Civil Judge had rejected the petitioner's application under clause (b)‑of rule 5 as, according to the learned Civil Judge, the petitioner was not a pauper. It has not been laid down in rule 5 that the Court shall obtain the report of the Collector before making an order thereunder. As is evident from the provisions of rule 6 of Order XXXIII, that the Government Pleader would come in the picture at the stage of evidence. According to the note appended to rule 4 of Chapter I‑M of the High Court Rules and Orders, Volume I, the Deputy Commissioner of each District in the Punjab has been declared to be the Government Pleader for his district for the purpose of rule 6 of Order XXX
111. The application made by the petitioner would have been fixed for evidence if it had survived the scrutiny of the learned Civil Judge under rule 5; but as the aforesaid scrutiny had revealed that the application was liable to be rejected summarily it was not necessary for the learned Civil Judge tot obtain the report of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector before ordering its rejection even though he had already asked for his report. In this view of the matter, the order of the learned Civil Judge is not open to any valid exception. .
4. Resultantly, this petition fails and is dismissed in limine. e. M. A, Petition dismissed: