Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AMAN ULLAH VS Respondent: WAZIR ALI
1988 S C M R 505
1988 S C M R 505
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ
AMAN ULLAH--Petitioner
versus
WAZIR ALI and others--Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.36 of 1979, decided on 3rd February, 1986.
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 18-10-1978 passed in R.S.A. No.810 of 1978).
Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)--
---S.21--Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss.9 & 10--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) , S .149 & O .VII , R .11--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Leave to appeal- -Pre-emption suit--Incorrect valuation for purposes of court-fee--Non-availability of statement of Annual Net Profits within time--Consequence of--Leave to appeal granted to consider inter alia contentions that plaint could not have been rejected for not making an application within a certain time for the statement of Net Profits nor the inquiry with regard to correct court-fee could be avoided and that it was duty of Trial Court to determine court-fee and then afford at least one chance as a matter of right to petitioner to supply the deficiency.
Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan and others P L D 1984 S C 157 and Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and others PLD 1984 S C 289 rel.
Asghar Khadim, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmood A, Qureshi, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd February, 1986.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has beer sought from judgment, dated 18-10-1978 of the Lahore High Court whereby petitioner's regular second appeal arising out of a pre-emption matter was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had not correctly valued the suit for purpose of court-fee.
2. The main ground urged before the High Court was that despite ",efforts made by the petitioner the statement of Annual Net Profits was not supplied well in time, and therefore, proper court-fee could not be paid. A learned Judge in the High Court took the view that it was for the petitioner to have made proper arrangement for obtaining the said statement well in time so as to furnish the proper court-fee on the date of the filing of the plaint. It was also held that the plaintiff had not acted bona fide, and therefore, was not entitled to any inquiry with regard to court--fee under sections 9 and 10 of the Court Fees Act (VII of 1870) .
3. This judgment was rendered by the High Court in 1978. The law as declared by this Court has undergone change. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the plaint could not have been rejected for not making an application within a certain time for the statement of Net Profits nor the inquiry with regard to correct court-fee could be avoided and that it was the duty of the trial Court to determine the court-fee and then afford at least one chance as a matter of right to the petitioner to supply the deficiency. All this was not done. He has relied on Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan and others P L D 1984 S C 157 and Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and others P L D 1984 S C 289.
4. These questions, inter alia, require examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted.
M.I./A-156/S Leave granted.