1997 PLP 2673 (MLD)

This revision petition assails the order dated 28‑5‑1992 passed by learned Civil Judge, Lahore whereby he condoned the delay of two days in making up the deficiency in court‑fee.

2. Relevant facts of the case, briefly, are that Suleman s/o Mangoo and his son Jan Muhammad, respondents filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of gift‑deed dated 11‑2‑1988 registered on 27‑2‑1988 and Mutation No.2320 sanctioned on 21‑3‑1988 in pursuance of the aforesaid gift‑deed pertaining to the suit land in favour of Sardar Khan defendant/respondent who happens to be the real son of plaintiff No.1 and real brother of defendant No.2. Plaintiff No.1 after migration to the country was allotted 106 Kanals, 7 Marlas of land fully described in para. 1 of the plaint. He, however, made a will in respect of 1/3rd of his land in favour of Jan Muhammad his real son who has been arrayed as plaintiff No.2 in the plaint. Subsequently plaintiff No.2 managed to get the gift- deed in respect of the whole of the land executed in his favour registered and acted upon through the mutation mentioned above. This was challenged by the father alongwith the other son claiming that he never gifted this land to the defendant and in fact 1 Kanal of land belonging to himself (Suleman) was acquired by the Federal Government and in order to obtain the compensation therefore the defendant being a young man was authorised to receive the same from the Federal Government on behalf of his father. He, however, artfully manoeuvred to get the whole land alienated to him by means of a gift with the active assistance of his learned counsel Ch. Wali Muhammad with whom Muhammad Aslam son of defendant worked as a Munshi. The plaintiffs challenged the validity of the gift as soon as they came to know of this fraud having been perpetrated upon them. On receipt of net profits sheet from the Revenue Office the Court ordered on 16‑2‑1992 for making up the deficiency before 16‑3‑1992 and further ordered that in case the plaintiffs failed to comply with the order the suit would stand dismissed. The plaintiff No.1 being an. old man of 100 years and having been stung by the highhandedness of his own son who has also the possession of the land with him appears to have failed to collect the amount to buy the court‑fee. He, however, deposited the amount on 15‑3‑1992 but could not procure the actual court‑fee for production in the Court. However, the stamp papers were available to him on 16‑3‑1992 which he produced in the Court and filed an application under section 148/149, C.P.C. for extension of time and so also for review of the order passed on 16‑2‑1992. After hearing the parties the learned trial Court condoned the delay and extended the time for the payment of court‑fee up to 17‑3‑1992. It is this order the validity of which has been impeached by the revision petitioner on the ground that a very valuable right had accrued to the petitioner, as such the Court had no mandate in law to extend the period either under section 149 or 151, C.P.C. that the, delay was wilful and contumacious and there was no valid ground for its condonation; that the order in question is palpably wrong and offends against the provisions of law.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, however, maintained that respondent No.1 is the father of the revision petitioner and being a man of about 100 years of age has been duped by his son who is also enjoying the possession of land. It was not easy for him to collect such a huge amount of Rs.15,000 and after his best efforts he procured the amount and deposited the same on 15‑3‑1992. However, on the following day after procuring the stamp paper he produced before the Court; that the impugned order is perfectly valid in law and promotes the ends of justice.

4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

5. It is now almost a settled proposition of law that the Courts are competent to extend time under section 149/151, C.P.C. provided the delay in making up the deficiency is not due to contumacious negligence and is not caused with mala fide intention. In this particular case the facts speak and speak very loudly that the father is challenging the gift of his entire estate allegedly made in favour of his own son and he is so determined that although the possession of the land is with the petitioner nevertheless he musters all his resources and collects the amount of course with a delay of two days and deposits in the Court. The superior Courts have held times without number that the legitimate claims of the people should not be frustrated on technical grounds. All the disputes should possibly be resolved and adjudicated on merits. Reference in this connection may be made to Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another (PLD 1984 SC 289). In Sher Muhammad and another v. Ghulam Muhammad (1993 CLC 1027) Mr. Justice Gul Zarin Kiani almost in a similar situation has held:‑‑ "Even after expiry of time fixed, the Court was empowered to further extend the time for payment of court‑fee. It was really a fiscal matter between a suitor and the State. It did not arm an adversary with a weapon for striking his opponent out of Court." So, therefore, it is obvious that the respondents cannot be non‑suited on the basis of this nominal delay which had occurred in the peculiar circumstances of the case. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed in limine. A.A./S‑463/L Revision dismissed.