Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No.1600/D of 1981, decided on 12th October, 1983.

‑‑‑S.115‑‑Revision‑‑Deficiency in amount of court‑fee payable on copies of judgment and decree‑‑Lapse of petitioner neither intentional nor contumacious, but was entirely, due to oversight‑‑Nothing available on record to show that deficiency in court‑fee was ever brought to notice of petitioner‑‑Held: Appellate Court instead of dismissing appeal should have extended time and permitted petitioner to affix proper court‑fee on copies of judgment and decree‑sheet.

Syed Zamir Hussain for Appellant.

Sahibzada Raashid Masood Gongohi for Respondents Nos. l to 3 and 5 to 8.

Date of hearing: 12th October, of 1983.

The petitioners were allotted some agricultural land in village Lidhar of Tehsil Lahore in pursuance of an order dated 5‑3‑1970 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Lahore. On 10‑3‑1976 the respondents filed a civil suit inter alia for a declaration that they were owners in possession of the said land on the footing that they and their ancestors had been in continuous and absolute possession thereof for a very long time. In this suit the petitioner were not made a party to the suit but instead one Ghulam Muhammad son of Nawab Khan was impleaded as the sole defendant. By an order dated 2‑3‑1977 Mr.Razi Abbas Bokhari, Civil Judge, Lahore, decreed the suit ex parte. On 10‑10‑1977 the petitioners filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree before the learned District Judge.

2. The case of the petitioners was that they had no notice of the suit as they were not impleaded by the respondents as defendants. They received knowledge of the decree when they approached the local Patwari for the attestation of a mutation of redemption.

3. On copies of the judgment and of the decree‑sheet the petitioners affixed court‑fee stamp of paisas 50 each instead of the prescribed amount of Rs.1.00. This deficiency was noticed by the office of the learned District judge but it does not appear that this defect in the appeal was brought to the notice of the petitioners. However that may be, it appears that the appeal was admitted to regular hearing without calling upon the petitioners to make up the deficiency. The appeal could not be herd for a long time as the record of the trial Court was not traceable. Ultimately some time between 10‑6‑1979 and 18‑12‑1979 the record was found and the appeal was listed for hearing. For one reason or the other the hearing was postponed till 9‑7‑1981 when the learned Additional District Judge made the following order:‑---

< --[if gte vml 1]> < [endif]-->

4. It is not in dispute before me that there is a deficiency of Re.1.00 in the amount of court‑fee payable on the copies of the judgment and of the decree‑sheet but I am satisfied that the lapse of the petitioners in this regard was neither intentional nor contumacious and that it was entirely due to oversight. It is to be noticed that on the memorandum of appeal and the other attached documents the petitioners had affixed court‑fee stamp worth Rs.22. It seems most unlikely that they would have grudged paying another Re.1, towards the court‑fee particularly when the withholding of that extra rupee would have jeopardized the very fate of their appeal. As already pointed out there is nothing on the record that the deficiency in the court‑fee was ever brought to the notice of the petitioners till 9‑7‑1981. In these circumstances instead of dismissing the appeal on account of this lapse on the part of the petitioners the learned Additional District Judge should have extended time and permitted the petitioners to affix the proper amount of court‑fee on the copies of the judgment and of the decree‑sheet. I would therefore, accept this civil revision and direct the learned Additional District Judge to now allow the petitioners to make up the deficiency within a time to be prescribed by him. If the petitioners make up the deficiency he may dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. There will be no costs in this civil revision.

H . B . T . Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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