Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 782 of 1980, decided on 4th July, 19.33.

‑‑ S. 22(4)‑Court Fees Act (VII of 1810), S. 28 ‑Pre‑emption suit‑Deposit of Zar‑e‑Panjum and deficient court‑fee‑Trial Court allowing plaintiff's applications for extension in time to deposit Zar‑e‑Panjum and make up deficient court‑fee without prior notice to defendants‑Action of trial Court disapproved‑Case remanded for decision afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to both parties.

Riaz Ahmad Khan v. Faiz Muhammad Khan P L D 1978 B J 85 rel.

Rana A. Rahim for Petitioners.

Zahoor‑ul‑Hasan Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 3rd July, 1983.

This civil revision arises from the order of learned Senior Civil Judge, Vehari, whereby he on 30th April, 1980 extended time for the deposit of court‑fee and Zar‑e‑Panjum in suit for possession by pre‑emption filed by Mst. Nuzhat Tareen, respondent, against Zafar Iqbal and others, the petitioners.

2. Since after hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am inclined to remand the case I need not set out the details of the orders pertaining to the deposit of 1/5th of the sale price and making up of the deficiency in the court‑fee. Suffice it to say that the trial Court took 3J years to decide application under section 22(4) of the Punjab Preemption Act moved by the petitioner/defendant and 4 years to dispose of the question of the extension of time in payment of the deficit court‑fee. As for 115th of the pre‑emption money, I find that on 31st May, 1976 Mst. Nuzhat Tareen filed suit for possession by pre‑emption. On the same day the trial Court directed respondent/plaintiff to deposit 1/5th i.e. Rs. 3,80,000 before 22nd September, 1976. On 15th July, 1976 the respon dent/plaintiff, however, moved application requesting the Court to order bank guarantee of Zar‑e‑Panjum instead of cash deposit. The trial Court vide its order, dated 16th July, 1976 allowed the application without notice to the petitioners/ defendants. The trial Court directed the respondent/plain tiff to furnish bank guarantee of 1/5th before 22nd September, 1976. It is remarkable that this order was not complied with and another applica tion for the extension of the time was moved, on 20th September, 1976. So far as the court‑fee is concerned, on 31st May, 1976 the trial Court required the respondent/plaintiff to make up the deficiency before 18th July, 1976. On 14th July, 1976 the respondent/plaintiff moved application for the extension of time on the ground that 'it was a sizable amount and could not be arranged whereon the trial Court vide its order, dated 16th July, 1976 extended the time till 21st September, 1976. These directions were also not complied with and an application for the extension of time was moved on 20th September, 1976. The trial Court issued notice on the applications, dated 20th September, 1976 for 22nd September, 1976 but without deciding the matter, on 22nd September, 1976 postponed the same till 17th November, 1976 when the trial Court framed following issue unnecessarily :‑-----

Whether there exists sufficient reason for extension of time for making up deficiency in the court‑fee and deposit of 1 /5th of the pre emption money

The trial Court took about 3# years to decide this issue and ultimately vide impugned order, dated 30th April, 1980 extended the time for the deposit of Zar‑e‑Panjum and court‑fee.

3. To my mind the applications, dated 14th July, 1976 and 15th July, 1976 for the extension of time to deposit Zar‑e‑Panjum and making up the deficiency should not have been allowed without prior notice of the same to the petitioners/defendants particularly when there was sufficient time in between the applications and the target date fixed for that deposit of Zar‑e‑Panjum and making up the deficiency in court‑fee inasmuch as the petitioners/ defendants were vitally interested in con tro verting the respondent's allegations and grounds for the extension of the time. The petitioners /defendants had a right to support the order, dated 30th May, 1976 passed by the trial Court in the first instance and to oppose the second order passed in variation thereof. Reliance may be placed on a case, Riaz Ahmad Khan v. Faiz Muhammad Khan (PLD1978BJ 85). I am fully conscious of the fact that on the second application, dated 20th September, 1976 notice was given and issue was framed and ultimately the impugned order was passed. I am of the considered opinion that since these proceedings relate to the application, dated 20th September, 1976, therefore, do not save and validate the order, dated 16th July, 1976 which was passed without notice to the petitioners/defendants.

4. For what has been stated above the interest of justice demands that this case be sent back to the trial Court for a decision afresh of the applications, dated 14th July, 1976 and 15th July, 1976 with prior notice to the petitioners/defendants and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties.

5. Before parting with the judgment I am constrained to observe that the procedure adopted by the trial Court for deciding applications, dated 20th September, 1976 and the subsequent application moved by the petitioners/ defendants for the rejection of the plaint under section 22(4) of the Punjab Pre‑emption Act by framing issue and recording evidence which took about 3 years to dispose of these matters, cannot be approved by this Court. The trial Court is directed to dispose of applications, dated 14th July, 1976 and 15th July, 1976 of the plaintiff within three months and may then decide afresh application of the plaintiff, dated 20th September; 1976 and of the petitioner/defendant moved by him under Punjab Pre-emption Act, if necessary.

M. Y. H. Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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