Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 323 of 1982, decided on 19th February, 1983.

Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)

‑‑ S. 15‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 149‑Court‑fee, ex tension of time‑Pre‑emptor filing application for extension of time for payment of deficient court‑fee, eight days before expiry of period of limitation‑Pre‑emptor making up deficiency in court‑fee within extended period‑Suit, held, cannot be held as time‑barred in circumstances of case.‑[Court‑fee].

Hamid Azhar Malik for Petitioners.

This revision arises from the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh, whereby he on 19th May, 1982 reversed the judgment and decree dated 3rd September, 1980 passed by Civil Judge, Ist Class, Kot Addu, decreeing the suit for possession through pre‑emption filed by Haji Ghulam Rasool and others against Sh. Abdul Sattar and others.

3. The facts giving rise to this revision in brief are that the respondents herein, filed a suit for possession by pre‑emption against the peti tioners with regard to land measuring 11 Kanals and 7 Marlas situated in Mauza Patti Diya Chokba, Tehsil Kot Aodu. The petitioners/defendants contested the suit by raising preliminary objections and deny ing the averments of the plaint. On the pleadings the following issues were framed :‑

(1) Whether the suit is under‑valued for the purposes of court‑fee and jurisdiction, if so what is the correct valuation, O.P.P.

(2) Whether the suit is time‑barred

(3) Whether the description of property is wrong O.P.D.

(4) Whether the plaintiffs have a superior right of pre‑emption OPP.

(5) Whether Rs. 4,000 were bona fide fixed or paid as the price of suit land O.P.D.

(6) What was the market value of the suit land at the time of sale OPD.

(7) Whether the defendants have improved the value of the suit land if so to what extent O.P.D.

(8) Whether the defendants are entitled to district council fee in case of decree O.P.D.

Issues 1 & 2 and 3 were found against the defendants/petitioners. Issue No. 4 was found in favour of the plaintiff/respondents. Issue No. 5 was decided in favour of the defendants/petitioners and it was held that the land was sold for Rs. 4,000. Issue No. 6 was left undecided. Issues Nos. 7 and .8 were found against the defendants/petitioners.

3. In view of the findings on the issues, the trial Court dismissed the suit on 30th June, 1980.

4. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiffs/respondents moved an appeal which was accepted by the learned District Judge on 19th May, 1982 and the suit was decreed on payment of Rs. 4,000. Hence this revision.

5. Learned counsel submits that the findings of the learned appellate Court on issues Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to be reversed inasmuch as the ex tension for making up the deficiency in the court‑fee under section 149, C.P.C. was given without legal and factual justification and that the complete Court‑fee has not been paid so far. Furthermore, the notice of application under section 149, C.P.C. was not given to the defendants/petitioners.

6. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record I find that the disputed land was sold on 12th May, 1973. The suit was filed on 4th May, 1974 and application under section 149, C.P.C. for time to make up the deficiency was moved on the same day. The trial Court directed the plaintiffs/ respondents to make up the deficiency by 23rd July, 1974 and that the plaintiffs/respondents fully complied with the direction. It is well‑settled that the trial Court has jurisdiction to extend time for making up the deficiency in the court‑fee.

In the case in hand the plaintiffs/defendants had moved application to extension of time 8 days before the expiry of the limitation and that appli cation was allowed by the trial Court.

7. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the findings of the learned District Judge on issues Nos. 1 and 2. There being no force the revision is dismissed, in limine.

M.A.K. Revision 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.