Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Civil Petition No. 360 of 1979, decided on 26th February, 1985.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 17‑3‑1979 in Civil Revision No. 908 of 1976).
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151 & O. VII, r.11‑‑Rejection of plaint on ground of deficiency of court‑fee‑‑Such rejection sought on ground that though court‑fee stamp was purchased within time specified by Court but was filed two days after such time‑ Plea rejected by Courts below and the High Court‑‑Discretion vested in Courts found not improperly exercised‑‑No interference was called for‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan and others P L D 1984 S C 157 and Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan P L D 1984 S C 289 fol.
Riaz Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court with Maqbul Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 26th February, 1985.
‑After contest but ultimately conceding the plaintiff pre‑emptors were called upon to make up the deficiency in court‑fee by 9th of April, 1976. The court‑fee stamp was purchased within time but filed two days later. The objection of the petitioner for rejection of plaint was rejected by the trial Court on 21‑7‑1976. The revision petition was dismissed by the High Court observing that there is only a delay of two days in the filing. It held that the exercise of discretion by the trial Court was proper and did not require interference.
Mr. Riaz Anwar the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the conduct of the plaintiff‑respondents examined in the context of the contest between the parties clearly appeared to be contumacious in the extreme. They had forfeited any claim to indulgence or exercise of discretion. They should have been penalised for it.
In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan and others P L D 1984 S C 157 and Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan P L D 1984 S C 289 and the rationale underlying, we consider this not to be a fit case for any further examination as a discretion vested in the Court has been exercised and found not to be improperly exercised. There is no question of further going into the merits of it. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
A.A. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer