Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil review Petition No. 33 of 1981 in Civil Petition No. 1094 of 1980), decided on 8th August, 1981.
(On review from the order of this Court dated 14th February 1981 in C. P. No. 1094 of 1980).
Art. 188--Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI--Review-Points raised expressly or impliedly dealt with in order of Court passed previously-No good ground in circumstances, held. existed to review same.--[Review by Supreme Court].
Sohara v. Rashid Ahmad and others P L D L)' 1 Lah. 261; Mst. Wala at Khatun v. Khalil Ahmad and another P L D 1979 S C 521 and Hidayatul and others v. Muhammad Ibrahim and another 1981 S C NI R 381 ref.
Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Y Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 8th August, 1981.
This application seeks a review of the order of this Court passed on 14-2-1981 whereby the applicants' Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1094 of 1980 was dismissed.
2. The applicants had brought a pre-emption suit on 12-7-1976 which was the last date for filing the suit. They had affixed court-fee of Rs.10 only whereas the court-fee payable was Rs.5,485. Before the trial Court they had, no doubt, applied for and had been granted time till 21-9-1976 for making up the deficiency in the court-fee but this had been objected to by the defendants. The High Court had held that the trial Court was not justified in mechanically extending the time beyond the period of limitation and that the conduct of the applicants in instituting the suit by affixing a nominal court-fee of Rs.10, was contumacious. The judgment of the High Court is Sohara v. Rashid Ahmad and others (P L D 1981 Lah. 261) and was based on a recent judgment of this Court Mst. Walayat Khatun v. Khalil and another (P L D 1979 S C 821).
This Court, not finding any fault with the order of the High Court, had dismissed the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal. See Hidayatullah and others v. Muhammad Ibrahim and another (1981 S C M R 381).
3. It has been urged that the order of the trial Court passed o 12-7-1976 extending the time, had itself not been challenged, that the said order had been passed when the period of limitation had not yet expired an that the applicants had complied with the order of the trial Court by making up by deficiency within the time permitted. All these points had been, expres sly or impliedly, dealt with in this Court's order dated 14-2-1981 and as suc we find, no good ground to review the same. The application is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer