Find a Lawyer

Review Application No.19/C of 1982, decided on 20th February, 1984.

---O.XLVII, rr.1 & 2 and S.151--Review petition--Points and grounds not raised during hearing, held, could not be allowed to be raised or introduced through a review application.

---O.XLVII, rr.1 & 2 and S.151--Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(v)- Court-fee payable, held, should be that which was payable on day of actual presentation off' appeal and not on any earlier date.

Syed Menzoor Hussain Ghazi v. Ejaz Hussain Shah F L D 1972 Lah 743; Haji Bosten v ahib Shah Ali and others P L D 1982 S C 102 and Mst. Parveen v. Mst. Jamshida Begum P L D 1983 S C 227 and PLD 1984 S C 157 rel.

S.M. Masood for Petitioner.

Malik Muhammad Nawaz for Respondents.

Rehmat Khan Awan for the Complainant.

Date of hearing: 20th February, 1984.

Petitioner seeks review of the order dated 25-4-1982 whereby the revision petition filed by him was dismissed in limine, on the following grounds:----

(a) The view expressed in the order that the court-fee was payable in accordance with the law prevailing on the date of institution of appeal does not flow from the judgment in the case of Syed Manzoor Hussain Ghazi v. Syed Ejaz Hussain Shah, Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore P L D 1972 Lah. 743 and that the precise question involved in the revision was not determined in the said judgment,

(b) Court-fee fixed on appeal was not insufficient as the word 'suit' used in section 7(v), Court-Fees Act cannot be substituted for the word 'appeal',

(c) Learned appellate Court had not determined the amount of court-fee payable on the appeal and as such without determining the said question, it could not hold that the court-fee paid was insufficient.

The appeal in any case should not have been dismissed without providing at best one opportunity to make up the deficiency, if any, in the court-fee.

In support of the last submission reference was made to recent judgments of the Supreme Court reported as Mst. Parveen v. Mst. Jamsheda Begum P L D 1983 S C 227 and Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan and others P L D 1984 S C 157. The grounds noted above except ground (a) cannot be agitated for the first time in review. It is well- settled that the points and the grounds which were not raised during the hearing of a matter, cannot be allowed to be raised or introduced through a review application. See Haji Bostan v. Sahib Shah Ali and others P L D 1982 S C 102. As regards ground (a), it is incorrect to contend that the view expressed in the order under review cannot be supported from the observations recorded in the aforenoted judgment. Para. 7 (pages 748 and 749 of the report) may be referred to wherein after giving various reasons, it was finally observed "that the court-fee payable should, therefore, be that which is payable on the day of actual presentation of appeal and not on any earlier date". The other questions sought to be raised by the learned counsel were not raised before me while arguing the revision petition. In fact the learned counsel when was not able to successfully assail the view contained in para. 7 of the aforesaid judgment, did not argue any other point. It was because of this reason that in the order under review it was observed that "the learned counsel has not been able to successfully assail this view and in fact in view of the law laid down in Syed Manzoor Hussain Ghazi v. Syed Ejaz Hussain Shah, Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore P L D 1972 Lah. 743 he has nothing to urge". No ground for review is thus made out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

H . B . T . 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.