Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MATT-UR-REHMAN VS Respondent: GHULAM MUHAMMAD
1988 M L D 83
1988 M L D 83
[Lahore]
Before Abaid ullah Khan and Munir A.Sheikh, JJ
MATT-UR-REHMAN and another--Appellants
Versus
GHULAM MUHAMMAD and 2 others Respondents
Regular First Appeal No. 114 of 1983, decided on 17th Apri1, 1988.
C1vii Procedure Code (V of 1908)
---O.VII, R.11 & S.96--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.15--Rejection of plaint for deficiency in court-fee when to be ordered--Where plaintiffs had been directed to pay deficient amount of court-fee by a specified date and they had faded to do so, only then Court would proceed to reject plaint--Where Court had never made any order determining deficiency in court-fee or calling upon plaintiffs to make up the same, order rejecting plaint would be against law Such order being devoid of merit was set aside by High Court in appeal and suit was remanded to Trial Court for speedy trial according to law.
Sidique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan P L D 1984 S C 289 fol:
Anwar Raza Khan for Appellants.
Dilawar Mahmood for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 17th April, 1988.
JUDGMENT
ABAID ULLAH KHAN, J.--This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jhang, dated the 12th March, 1983, recording dismissal of the appellants' suit for possession by pre-emption of 480 kanals 7 marlas of the land in dispute situated m the area of village Jehangirpur, tehsil and district Jhang, as well as rejection of the plaint. The appellants instituted suit on the 30th June, 1982 to pre-empt the sale of the land in question effected by Ghulam Farid and others in favour of the respondents by means of a sale-deed which was registered on the 30th June, 1981. They tentatively filed the value of the case for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs 900 and undertook to make up deficiency in court-fee on preparation of the statement of net profits of the land for the year next before the presentation of the plaints. The learned trial Court treated the appellants' failure to pay full court-fee at the time of filing of the suit equivalent to their negligent and contumacious act and, therefore, passed the impugned order throwing out the suit.
The learned trial Court never made any order determining deficiency in court fee or calling upon the appellants to make up the same. It was only after the appellants had been directed to pay deficient amount of court-fee by a spec, date and they had failed to do so that the learned Court could proceed to reject the plaint. The learned counsel for the respondents had no answer to the rule laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan P L D 1984 S C 289 which renders the impugned order to be against law. The appeal is, therefore, accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the suit is remanded to the learned trial Court for deciding it according to law. As the suit is fairly old it deserves expeditious disposal. The learned trial Court is directed to give it priority over other cases, decide, at within six months and report compliance to this Court The parties are left, to bear their own court.
AA.P M-709/1, Appeal accepted.