Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

FERAL SHAH versus EJAZ AHMAD USMAN


Article 185 (3) Civil Procedure Code (V8 1908), O VII, r 11 The default in payment of required court fees was that it was not necessary for the trial court to rule on the unacceptable principle. Reject, which was properly applied, High Court's decision on appeal denied unimaginable leave
1985 S C M R 873

Present: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Shafiur Rahman, JJ

FAZAL SHAH and others‑‑Petitioners

versus

EJAZ AHMAD USMAN and others‑‑Respondents

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.2 of 1983, decided on 10th October, 1984.

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, r.11‑‑Default in payment of requisite court‑fee‑‑Plea that it was incumbent upon trial Court to reject plaint not accepted‑‑Principle laid down by Supreme Court, held, correctly applied‑‑High Court judgment being unexception able leave to appeal refused.

Siddique Khan and others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and others P L D 1984 S C 289 ref.

Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.

Date of hearing: 10th October, 1984.

ORDER

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑

‑The first respondent filed a suit against the petitioners for pre‑emption of the suit‑land which was dismissed on the ground that the suit‑land was not pre‑emptable. Appeal against the judgment of the trial Court was dismissed but on a second appeal Lahore High Court remanded the case to the trial Court for decision on merits.

In the second round of litigation, suit was decreed by the trial Court in plaintiff's favour, appeal filed by petitioners was dismissed and Lahore High Court also dismissed their revision application. They now seek leave to appeal.

The only plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that it was incumbent upon the trial Court to reject the plaint of the suit under Order VII, rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure for the plaintiff had not paid the requisite court‑fees.

This plea was examined in details by the High Court anal was rejected on the principles laid down by this Court in Siddique Khan and others v. .Abdul Shakur Khan and others P L D 1984 S C 289. We find that no exception can be taken with the judgment of the High A Court, for it has correctly applied the rule laid down by this Court on

the facts of the present case.

The petition is dismissed.

M.I. 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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
Pakistan, top advocate family court from Sialkot lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.