1994 PLP 1020 (MLD)
ZULFIQAR ALI — Appellant Versus Mst. SAJIDA BEGUM — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1020 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZULFIQAR ALI — Appellant Versus Mst. SAJIDA BEGUM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (c) Civil Procedure, Code (V of 1908), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1020 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (c) Civil Procedure, Code (V of 1908), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1020 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1020 (MLD) (ZULFIQAR ALI — Appellant Versus Mst. SAJIDA BEGUM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikhar Ali Sheikh for Appellant. Ch. Khurshid Ahmad and Shahbaz Khurshid for Respondent, Date of hearing: 17th October, 1992,
Headnotes / Summary
S.149 & OVII, R.11
Power to make up deficiency in court-fee
Failure of Court to exercise discretion judiciously
Effect
Trial Court did not exercise the discretion conferred on it under 5.149, C.P.C. and dismissed plaint merely due to deficiency of court-fee
Appellate Court was justified to reverse the judgment and decree in circumstances.
O. VII, R.11(b)
Failure of Trial Court to fix time for correcting .valuation
Effect
Trial Court neither fixed any time for correcting the valuation nor made a requirement to that effect
Trial Court's judgment was rightly reversed by the Appellate Court.
S.100
Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.4
Second appeal-- Concurrent findings on merits by two Courts below in favour of plaintiff pre-emptor
Vendee as such could not be armed with technical plea to dislodge the plaintiff pre-emptor on mere ground of court-fee in second appeal. [p. 1021] B AIR 1918 PC 188 rel.
Judgment & Decree
This is a second appeal by the vendees against appellate judgment and decree dated 25-5-1982 passed in favour of the respondent in recognition of her superior right of pre-emption with regard to sale of agricultural land, upon dissenting with the trial Court's judgment dated 21-9-1981 whereby the suit had been dismissed merely due to deficiency of court-fee.
2. Only question attempted to be argued for the appellants is that the insufficiently stamped plaint by the respondent was properly rejected by the trial Court and its order did not call for interference in appeal. I do not find any substance in this contention because:
firstly, the trial Court had not judiciously exercised the discretion conferred on it by the provisions of section 149 of the C.P.C.; secondly, two Courts below have concurrently reached the conclusion in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on merits of the claim and appellants do not have anything to urge there against; thirdly, as such, the vendees cannot be armed with a plea of technicality to dislodge the plaintiff on the mere ground of court-fee as has been held in Rachappa Subrao Jadhe Desai v. Shidappa Venkatrao Jadhev Desai AIR 1918 PC 188; and fourthly, the trial Court had not fulfilled the requirements of the provisions of clause (b) of Rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C., inasmuch as there was neither any time fixed by the Court for correcting the valuation nor was a requirement to such an effect made of her. Learned appellate Judge rightly reversed the judgment of the trial Court. His view is supported by case of Siddique Khan reported as PLD 1984 SC 289.
3. In result of the foregoing, this second appeal has no force. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. M.Z.S./Z-103/L Second appeal dismissed.