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. 896 of 1982, decided on 7th March, 1983.
(From the order dated 22‑11‑1981 of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revision No. 1510/D of 1981).
----Art. 185(3)‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 149‑‑Pre‑emp tion suit‑High Court holding that omission on part of Patwari cannot be inferred result of any machination on part of plaintiff for purpose of avoiding payment of court‑fees, plaintiff therefore, could not be made to suffer on account of mistake of Patwari‑Neither contumacy nor negligence attributable to plaintiff in affixing less court‑fees‑Leave to appeal refused in circumstances.
Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Malik Abdul Qayyum, Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by Walayat Umar Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 7th March, 1983.
The only question requiring consideration in this petition for leave to appeal, is whether the High .Court was justified in main taining the order of the Additional District Judge allowing 15 days' time to the respondent/plaintiff to make up the deficiency of Rs. 313.50 in the court fee affixed on the plaint.
2. The plaintiff had affixed court‑fee of the value of Rs. 3,220 on the plaint in his pre‑emption suit which was correct according to the statement of annual net profits (Exh. P. 1) and Khasra Girdawari (Exh. P. 3) which had been supplied to him by the revenue official. It, however, transpired from another statement of annual net profits (Exh. P. 2) filed by the peti tioners defendant that some entries had been omitted in Exh. 1 and that the court‑fee computed on the basis of Exh. P. 2 would come to Rs. 3,533.50. The trial Court, therefore, dismissed the suit. In appeal, however, the learned Additional District Judge held that the plaintiff was not guilty of any deliberate negligence on his part and accordingly gave him 15 days' time to make up the deficiency. In revision brought before the High Court by the petitioners, the learned Judge went into the matter in sufficient detail and noted that the Naib‑Office Kanungo, who had appeared as P. W. 1. had stated that the statement Exh. P. 1 had been correctly prepared in accordance with the record. The High Court, therefore, came to the view that it could not be conclusively inferred that the omission on the part of the Patwari was the result of any machination on the part of the plaintiff for the purpose of avoiding payment of court‑fee, that he could not be made to suffer on account of mistake of the Patwari and that neither contumacy nor negligence could be attributed to him in affixing court‑fee.
3. We have beard learned counsel but to do not find any valid ground to interfere with the order of the High Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
M.Z.M Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer