Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 411 of 1978, decided on 17th January, 1983.

(From the judgment dated 14‑5‑1978 of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revision No. 474 of 1978).

‑‑‑ Art. 185(3) read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908). O. VII, r. 11‑Rejection of plaint for failure of plaintiff to make up deficiency in court‑fee within time given by Court‑Concurrent view of matter taken by Courts below‑Held, cannot be to interference by Supreme Court.‑[Court‑fee].

Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chauhan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 17th Januara1983.

The petitioner instituted a pre‑emption suit on 17‑10‑1975 affixing court‑fee worth Rs. 15 only. On 18‑10‑1975 the Court directed him to make up the deficiency in the court‑fee in accordance with the relevant statement of annual net profits of the land, by 3‑1‑1976. The deficiency was made good not within the time so given by the Court but some time on or before 5‑2‑1976. The effect of this non‑compliance formed the subject‑matter of issue No. 5 which was found against the petitioner and accordingly his plaint was rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. The petitioner's appeal and thereafter a review petition before the District Judge, Mianwali, having failed, he came to the High Court in civil revision but the same, too, was dismissed in limine by the impugned order dated 14‑5‑1978. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

2. Learned counsel submits that the deficiency was only to the tune of Rs. 203, that the delay in making up the deficiency was on account of the fact that the statement of net profits had been made available after the due date, i.e., 3‑1‑1976, and that the trial Court, having taken no exception when recording in the proceeding sheet of 5‑2‑1976 that the deficiency had been made up, would be deemed to have extended time until that date. He, therefore, urges that the conduct of the petitioner did not verge on contumacy.

3. We find that no effort was made by the petitioner to approach the trial Court for grant of extension of time either before or after the due date, i.e., 3‑1‑1976. It also appears from the submissions made by learned counsel that the petitioner had applied for issue of statement of net profits after the order of 18‑10‑1975. In these circumstances, the concurrent view taken by the Courts below is not open to interference. The petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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