1994 PLP 367 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus Mst. BHOORI‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 367 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus Mst. BHOORI‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 367 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 367 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 367 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus Mst. BHOORI‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Fazal‑e‑Chauhan, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- M. Kowkab Iqbal, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 4th November, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 8‑12‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in R.S.A. No. 37 of 1981). (a) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 30‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11‑‑‑Suit for. pre emption ‑‑‑Dismissal on ground of limitation‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether, plaintiff s suit was not liable to be dismissed on around of limitation for deficiency in court‑fee pointed out in Trial Court was not supplied within period of limitation. (b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 30‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11‑‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑ Deficiency in court‑fee‑‑‑Court must specify exact amount which was to be paid as court‑fee, and that too on grant of time after such determination of court‑fee as per rule laid down by Supreme Court in Siddique Khan's case PLD 1984 SC
289. Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another PLD 1984 SC 289 rel.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 30‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11‑‑‑Suit for. pre emption ‑‑‑Dismissal on ground of limitation‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether, plaintiff s suit was not liable to be dismissed on around of limitation for deficiency in court‑fee pointed out in Trial Court was not supplied within period of limitation. (b) Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 30‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11‑‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑ Deficiency in court‑fee‑‑‑Court must specify exact amount which was to be paid as court‑fee, and that too on grant of time after such determination of court‑fee as per rule laid down by Supreme Court in Siddique Khan's case PLD 1984 SC
289. Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another PLD 1984 SC 289 rel. Ch. Fazal‑e‑Chauhan, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants. M. Kowkab Iqbal, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 4th November, 1990. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ. ‑‑‑This appeal by leave of the Court filed by the defendants' side in a suit for pre‑emption is directed against the dismissal by the High Court of their Regular Second Appeal. Leave to appeal was granted to examine: whether, the respondent/plaintiffs suit was not liable to be dismissed on ground of limitation as the deficiency in court‑fee pointed out in the trial Court was not supplied within the period of limitation. After hearing the learned counsel we find that this case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another (PLD 1984 Supreme Court 289) which goes against the appellants' side. Learned counsel remained unable to satisfy us that the respondent/plaintiff as held in the said case of Siddique Khan was not entitled as of right to grant of time in the first instance; and secondly, that despite the report of the Commission it was not the duty of the trial Court to specify exact amount which was to be paid as court‑fee, and that too on the grant of time after the said determination of the court‑fee. Indeed in the circumstances of this case we are satisfied that the conduct of the respondent/plaintiff (female) was not in any way contumacious. Looked at from whatever angle there is no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. A.A./M‑1826/S Appeal dismissed.