Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 48 of 1980, decided on 11th November, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 27-10-1980 in W. P. 6908 of 1979).

-- O. VII, r. 11-Rejection of plaint-Court-fee-Deficiency of Civil Court directing plaintiff to deposit portion of pre-emption money and to pay deficit court-fee-Plaintiff failing to take any step in matter for one year and neglecting to pay balance of court-fee Order of Assistant Collector, to whom case meanwhile transferred, rejecting plaint and upheld by higher Revenue Authorities-Held, High Court justified in refusing to interfere with concurrent findings of Revenue Authorities-West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957).-[Plaint-Court-feel.

Muhammad Ismail, Advocate and Sh. A. Karim, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 11th November, 1980.

.-The dispute in this petition for leave relates to about 200 Kanals of land in Sheikhupura District. The land was owned by the first respondent, who sold it by a registered sale deed to the other respondents for a sum of Rs. 1.50 lacs. Therefore, as the petitioners were the tenants of the first respondent, they immediately filed a suit to pre-empt the sale under paragraph 25 of M. L. R. 115. The suit was presented on 12-5-1976 and on the same day, the learned Civil Judge passed an order directing the respondents to deposit by 31-5-1976 a portion of the pre-emption money and to pay the deficit court-fees by the 31st May. Next, according to learned counsel, the case was transferred to the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, Ferozewala in 1977. And, in May, the petitioners filed an applica tion to have the produce statement prepared. This application was allowed on 3-7-1977. but without waiting for the report of the produce statement, the Assistant Commissioner/Collector held that the petitioners had been allowed time but had been negligent in complying with the order to pay the balance of court-fees therefore, he rejected the plaint with costs under Order VII, rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code by his order dated 15-11-1977.

The petitioners challenged this order in an appeal, but the Additional Commissioner, who heard the appeal, agreed with the view of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector that the petitioners have been negligent in complying with the order of 12-5-1976 for the payment of the balance of court-fees. The petitioners, therefore, filed a revision which was dismissed on 2-8-1979. Therefore, they filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed in limine on 27-10-1979. Hence this petition for leave.

Learned counsel submitted that the balance of court-fees had to be fixed by the Court on the basis of the produce statement of the land but despite the efforts made by them in this respect before the Assistant Commis sioner/Collector, this statement had not been submitted by the Patwari. Therefore, the balance of court-fees due from them was never- determined, and, therefore, all the Courts had erred in law in holding that they had been negligent. We are unable to accept this submission, because admittedly the petitioners had applied for the preparation of the produce statement in May, 1977. This was one year after the Civil Judge's order of 12-5-1976 directing them to pay the balance of court-fees by 31-5-1976. In view of this order, learned counsel can succeed in his plea that the petitioners were not negligent only if he can show that the petitioners had taken steps immediately after the Civil Judge's order of 12-5-1976 to have the produce statement of the land in dispute prepared. But, he was unable to refer us to an evidence whatever to show that the petitioners had taken any steps whatever in this direction between May, 1976 and May, 1977. Therefore, we see no error in the view taken by the Tribunals under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act and further on the law declared by this Court in Mst. Walayat Khatun v. Khali Khan and another (1), the High Court would not have been justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of the Revenue authorities against the petitioners.

Additionally, we have to observe that the averments of the petitioners in the writ petition were misguiding. They suppressed that they had been directed by the Civil Judge on 12th May, 1976, to, make up the deficiency in court-fees. by the 31st May, 1976. We are very poorly impressed by the conduct of the petitioners and in all the circumstances discussed, it is clearly not a fit case for the grant of special leave and the petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.