Find a Lawyer

(On appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 1-4-1980 passed in Writ Petition No. 5887 of 1978).

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-

-- Art. 199-Writ jurisdiction-Writ petitions meant to ensure correc tion of excess of jurisdiction and not to interfere with exercise of discretion of Courts having jurisdiction in matter-Writ petition Neither an appeal nor a revision-Revenue Court having jurisdiction extending time for making good deficiency in court-fee-High Court held, could not interfere with exercise of such discretion in writ jurisdiction.-[Jurisdiction-Appeal (civil)-Revision (civil)-Court-fee].

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-

--Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Application of mind - Collector passing a detailed order on point in dispute and Member, Board of Revenue, after hearing petitioners' counsel coming to conclusion as to there being no justification to interfere with impugned order-Member Board of Revenue, held, not required in circumstances to produce all reasons given by Collector as impressed him and formed basis of his order and contention as to his order being not a speaking order and not passed after application of judicial mind not tenable. [Judgment].

Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 21st June 1980.

ORDER

MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-

Javed Manzoor and Tariq Manzoor purchased the agricultural land in dispute for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 from Muhammad Ashraf on 21-1-1975. Shaukat Hussain (respondent No. 3), who is admittedly the tenant in occupation of the land, filed a suit for pre-emption. The court-fee paid by him was, however, deficient and the same was rejected by the learned Civil Judge.

2. He again filed a pre-emption suit on 10-1-1976 and again did not pay the full amount of court-fee. On 15-1-1976 the learned trial Court gave him time to make good the deficiency by 3-2-1976. This date fell beyond the period of limitation. This time the plaintiff did make some additional payments towards court-fee but even then the total amount paid fell short by about two thousand. Notwithstanding this, the learned Civil Judge by his order dated 3-2-1976 held that the deficiency had been made good.

3. Meanwhile by a change in law the jurisdiction in respect of such suits was conferred upon revenue Courts and the matter was transferred to the Collector, Sargodha.

4. Objection was taken by the defence before the Collector regarding the deficiency in court-fee and two issues were framed :--

< --[if gte vml 1]> < [endif]-->

5. An application was presented under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. which was contested. The learned Collector, however, found in favour of the present petitioners but instead of rejecting the plaint allowed the making up of the deficiency though there was no application to secure this end.

6. The present petitioners challenged the order in revision and the petition was dismissed summarily on 28-11-1978. The petitioners, therefore, moved the High Court against both the orders. The Writ Petition was dismissed on 1-4-1980. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.

7. It has been submitted before us that the order of the Member, Board of Revenue is not a speaking order and he has not applied his judicial mind to it. We have gone through the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue and having read it along with the order passed by the trial Court we cannot see eye to eye with the learned counsel for the petitioners. There is a detailed order passed by the learned Collector on the point in dispute and the Member, Board of Revenue after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners came to the conclusion that there was no justification to interfere with the impugned order. We do not find any reason that the Member, Board of Revenue should have produced all the reasons given by the learned Collector which had impressed him and which were also the basis of his order.

8. Be that as it may, the fact remains that it was a writ petition before the High Court and not an appeal or revision. The High Court could not have interfered with the exercise of discretion by the revenue Courts in extending time for making good the deficiency in the court-fee, particularly when those Courts had the jurisdiction to exercise such a discretion. Writ Petitions are meant for ensuring that excess of jurisdiction be corrected and not for interfering with the exercise of discretion of Courts which have the jurisdiction for it.

9. We consequently reject the application and decline to grant leave.

Application rejected.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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