P L D 1964 Azad J & K 13 (PLP)
SARWAR KHAN ETC.‑Appellants Versus Mst. FAZAL BEGUM‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1964 Azad J & K 13 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Khan Abdul Hamid Khan, C. J. and Khan Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | SARWAR KHAN ETC.‑Appellants Versus Mst. FAZAL BEGUM‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 Azad J & K 13 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1964 Azad J & K 13 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Khan Abdul Hamid Khan, C. J. and Khan Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1964 Azad J & K 13 (PLP) (SARWAR KHAN ETC.‑Appellants Versus Mst. FAZAL BEGUM‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Ghafoor for Appellants.
- M. Y. Cheema for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIII, rr. 1, 2 & 5 and S. 149‑Application for permission to appeal in forma pauperis-- Rejection for non‑compliance of provision in r. 2 does not ipso facto entail rejection of appeal‑Court, under S. 149, can grant time to make up deficiency in Court fee and dispose of appeal on merits. A I R 1918 Mad. 1039 and A I R 1936 Lah. 909 ref.
Judgment & Decree
O. XXXIII, rr. 1, 2 & 5 and S. 149‑Application for permission to appeal in forma pauperis-- Rejection for non‑compliance of provision in r. 2 does not ipso facto entail rejection of appeal‑Court, under S. 149, can grant time to make up deficiency in Court fee and dispose of appeal on merits. A I R 1918 Mad. 1039 and A I R 1936 Lah. 909 ref. Abdul Ghafoor for Appellants. M. Y. Cheema for Respondent. ABDUL HAMID KHAN, C. J.‑This appeal against the judgment of the District Judge, Mangla Dam dated 5‑6‑63 was filed in forma pauperis. As it was not presented by the applicant himself and also because it was not accompanied by a schedule of any movable or immovable property belonging to the applicant as required by Order XXXIII, rules 2 and 3, objection was taken by the counsel for the respondent and it was prayed that the application should be rejected under rule 5 of Order XXXIII, C. P. C. for non‑compliance with the provisions of rules 2 and 3 of Order XXXIII. The objection taken is correct and we therefore reject the application to hear the appeal in forma pauperis. It was then prayed on behalf of the appellants that they should be allowed time to make up the deficiency in the Court‑fee under section 149, C. P. C. and the appeal should be heard on merits. In reply it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the rejection of the application for permission to appeal as a pauper ipso facto carried with it the rejection of the memorandum of appeal and therefore the appellants should not be granted any time to make up the deficiency in the Court‑fee. In our opinion the memorandum of appeal is a separate document before the Court which remains for disposal after rejection of the application to appeal as a pauper and the Court has power under section 149, C. P. C. to grant time for the payment of the requisite Court‑fee stamp and admit the appeal. In this view of matter we find support in A I R 1918 Mad. 1039 and A I R 193‑6 Lah.
909. In A I R 1936 Lah. 909 the High Court had extended time for payment of the requisite Court‑fee on an appeal In the lower Court even where the time fixed by the lower appellate Court for paying Court‑fee had already expired and appeal dismissed for want of payment of Court‑fee in a revision against the order rejecting the petitioner's application to appeal as a pauper. Let the appellants in this case make up the deficiency in the Court‑fee till 21st December 1963 when the appeal shall be heard on merits. K.B.A. Order accordingly.