1994 PLP 1756 (SCMR)
Haji MOHYUDDIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SHER BAHADUR KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1756 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Haji MOHYUDDIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SHER BAHADUR KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1756 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1756 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1756 (SCMR) (Haji MOHYUDDIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SHER BAHADUR KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Shah Badshah, Advocate Supreme Court and Jan Muhammad Khan (absent) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st October, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Peshawar High Court at D.I. Khan, dated 17‑9‑1992 in Civil Revision No. 192). ‑‑‑‑O.VII, R. 11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Deposit of court‑fee as per direction of Court‑‑‑Defendant's plea, that plaint being not accompanied by requisite court‑fee should have been rejected, was not warranted‑‑‑Court was obliged under provision of O.VII, R. 11(c), C.P.C. to afford one opportunity to plaintiff to supply deficiency in court‑fee before rejection of plaint‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑The petitioners have filed this petition against the order of the Peshawar High Court dated 17‑9‑1992 seeking leave to appeal.
2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs‑respondents filed a suit for possession through pre‑emption against the petitioners and claimed that the property was sold for Rs.25,
000. The petitioners on the other hand submitted that the shop was sold for consideration of Rs.15,00,
000. The trial Court directed the plaintiffs to deposit Rs.5,00,000 in cash and furnish a Bank Guarantee for Rs.10,00,
000. The plaintiffs challenged this order in a Revision Petition before the High Court which was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondents deposited Rs.15,00,000 in cash on 28‑7‑1991.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the plaintiffs did not pay the requisite court‑fee, therefore, the petitioners filed an application on 6‑11‑1991 for the dismissal of the plaint due to non‑payment of proper court fee. The trial Court dismissed the application and directed the plaintiffs to deposit court‑fee upon Rs.15,00,000 up to 13‑11‑1991. The learned counsel admitted that the plaintiffs had paid the court fee within the stipulated period. The petitioners, however, challenged the order of the trial Court dated 6‑11 1991 in a Revision Petition before the High Court which was dismissed by means of impugned judgment.
3. The learned counsel reiterated the same contention which he had raised before the High Court. The plaintiffs had deposited the court‑fee as per direction of the trial Court. The learned counsel submitted that the plaint should have been rejected under Order VII, rule
11. We do not see any force in this contention. The orders of the two Courts are proper and legal. This Court in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan (PLD 1984 SC 289), has observed that "It is obligatory under Order VII, rule 11(c) to afford one opportunity to supply the deficiency in court‑fee, before rejection of the plaint under the said provision".
4. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. AA/M‑1921/S Leave refused.