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 Petition No. 367 of 1981, decided on 29th August, 1981.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 2 ‑2‑1981 in Writ Petition No. 3416 of 1980).
‑‑ Arts. 185(3) & 199 and Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 28‑Court fee‑Deficiency‑Member, Board of Revenue non‑suiting respondent for not having made up deficiency in Court‑fee for six years‑High Court however, holding decision to be of no legal effect due to question of late payment having not been taken in suit or memo. of appeal Whether High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction could interfere with order of Member Board of Revenue on such grounds‑Leave to appeal granted to consider question.‑[Court‑fee‑Leave to appeal].
Jari Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Malik Talib Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court with Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
‑In this case respondents 1 and 2 had affixed court‑fee of Rs. 2.00 only on their plaint when they instituted the pre‑emption suit on 17‑7‑1974. They did not make up the deficiency within the time allowed by the Court. They made it up on 19‑1‑1979, just a few days before the decree was passed. The appellate Court took notice of it and remanded the matter to the trial Court for a fresh decision. In revision, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, on‑suited them on account of their not having made up the deficiency in the Court‑fee for six years. The High Court, however, held the decision to be unlawful and of no legal effect on the view that the question of late payment of the Court‑fee, which had not been taken in the suit or the memorandum of appeal, could not be imported belatedly. Leave is granted to consider whether the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction could have interfered with the order of the Member, Board of Revenue. Security Rs. 2.000.00 (Rupees two thousand only).
2. Mailk Talib Hussain Awan, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
3. Pending the disposal of the appeal, the proceedings before the trial Court shall be stayed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer