Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GHULAM HUSSAIN And Another VS Respondent: Malik SHAHBAZ KHAN And Another
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Nasim Hasan Shah, Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Aslam Riaz Hussain Title: GHULAM HUSSAIN And Another vs Malik SHAHBAZ KHAN And Another Case No.:Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 465 of 1985 Writ Petition No.
1083 of 1982 Date of Judgment:1985-06-22 Reported As: 1985 SCMR 1925 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from Order dated 12-3-1983 of the Lahore High Court whereby a Constitutional writ petition arising out of a civil pre-emption suit, was dismissed. 2. The petitioners plaintiffs were permitted by the trial Court to supply the deficiency in court-fee. The defendants respondents challenged the order of the trial Court in this behalf in Civil Revision which was allowed by a learned Additional District Judge. The petitioners then moved a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed, therefore, this petition for leave to appeal. 3. The learned Judge in the High Court while dismissing the writ petition noted that as a result of the revisional order the plaint had not been rejected, meaning thereby, that if rejected the petitioner would have a right of appeal. Therefore, obviously the High Court was not inclined to interfere in the matter which had arisen out of a civil suit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the learned Additional District Judge has ignored the latest law declared by this Court on the question of the deficiency in court-fee. When questioned, however, as to why this very point cannot be raised before the appellate forum if and when the plaint is rejected on the basis of deficient court-fee, learned counsel replied that the revisional order might operate as a bar. 5. We do not agree with him. The order of the High court is sufficiently indicative of the fact that the revisional order will not be a bar when regular remedy by way of appeal is sought by the petitioners against either the dismissal of the suit or against the rejection of the plaint.
---
## Page 2
6. With the observation that in case of need there being other adequate remedy available to the petitioners, we do not find any justification for interference. This petition is accordingly dismissed.