Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Haji MOHYUDDIN and others VS Respondent: SHER BAHADUR KHAN and others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Wali Muhammad Khan Title: Haji MOHYUDDIN and others vs SHER BAHADUR KHAN and others Case No.: Civil Petition No, 174-P of 1992 Date of Judgment:1992-10-31 Reported As: 1994 SCMR 1756 Result: Leave refused
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' 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 6-111991 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,
---
## Page 2
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.