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 for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1439 of 1980, decided on 15th December 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 2nd August 1980 in Regular Second Appeal No. 676 of 1980).
------S. 3, Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) Pre‑emption‑Deficiency in court‑fee‑Trial Court passing a vague order for making up deficiency in court‑fee and plaintiff faithfully complying with such order‑No objection to any further deficiency appearing to have been raised by defendant or Court‑Subsequently on another statement of net profits being produced preparation of mis taken statement discovered‑-Mistake resulting due to lapse of Kanungo preparing statement of net profits highly unjust and unreasonable to penalize plaintiff for faults of revenue official‑High Court having on reappraisal of case confirmed such views of District Court and rejected pleas advanced, petition for leave to appeal, held, without merit and dismissed.
Abdul Maajid Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 15th December 1980.
The facts of this case briefly stated are that on 24‑5‑1977 Fajar Ali respondent filed pre‑emption suit against the petitioners on the basis of his being collateral of the vendor and also being the share‑holder to the khata. The plaintiff paid Rs. 30 as court‑fee in the first instance and he deposited additional sum of Rs. 1,040 on the basis of Fard Khalis Munafa within the time allowed by the Courts and he finally paid a sum of Rs. 261 on 3‑2‑1979 in pursuance of another Fard Khalis Munafa produced by the petitioner.
Learned Civil Judge who dealt with the suit accepted respondent's claim on merit but he dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaint was not properly stamped. On petitioners appeal the District Judge disagreed with the view of the trial Judge and reversed the judgment and decree and the Lahore High Court on a second appeal by the petitioners confirmed the view that prevailed with the first appellate Court and dismissed the second appeal.
The reasons that prevailed with the learned Additional District Judge are relevant to the pleas made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the petition and the relevant portion of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge may, therefore usefully be reproduced. This is what he has observed:
"A perusal of the order sheet will show that in the office report which was made on 24‑5‑1977 it was reported that on the valuation fixed on the plaint a correct court‑fee had been paid, whereas the plaintiff had offered to pay up the deficiency in the court‑fee if any, after the state ment of the net profit has been got prepared. It is an obligation of the Court under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. to determine the court‑fee if any, and pass a positive direction for making up the deficiency in the court‑Fee of a positive amount by a positive date The learned trial Court however appears to have passed a vague order for making up the deficiency in the court‑fee on 16‑7‑1979 requiring the appellant to make up the deficiency in the court‑fee before 25‑7‑1977. The appellant faithfully complied with the said order. He obtained the statements of net profits, marked out a proper court‑fee and paid the same. He also filed amended plaint amending the value of the suit. From the order dated 25‑7‑1977 it appears that the deficiency in the court‑fee had been made up. It is pertinent to note that no objection to any further deficiency from the order appears to have been raised by the respondent‑defendant, nor the learned trial Court appears to have made any such observation. It appears that subse quently another statement of net profits was produced by the respondent which showed the aggregate net profit at Rs. 1,152.93 although in the statement of net profit which had been obtained by the appel lant plaintiff the aggregate of net profit had been shown at Rs. 946.68. As appears from the statement of Nasim Shah Kanungo that the mistake had resulted in the statement of net profit which was produced by the appellant had worked out a wrong aggregate as otherwise the various entries made therein were according to the records. S4 it is manifest that the mistake, if any, had resuited due to lapse of the Kanungo who had prepared the statement of net profits for the appellant. It was thus highly unjust and most unreasonable to have penalized the appellant for the fault of revenue officials."
The High Court on re‑appraisal of the case confirmed the views of the learned Additional District Judge and rejected the pleas that are now being advanced in support of this petition. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition and dismiss it in liming.
Leave petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer