Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 290 of 1984, decided on 29th May, 1985.

(From the order, dated 8th February, 1984, of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, passed in F.A.O. No. 63 of 1983).

‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, r. 11‑ Rejection of plaint‑‑Deficiency in court‑fee‑‑Request for extension of time not granted by trial Court‑‑Order reversed in appeal‑‑Respondents neither negligent nor their failure to make up deficiency contumacious‑ High Court's order allowing time to make up deficiency being in accord with rule laid down earlier by Supreme Court, upheld‑‑Petition dismissed.

Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan P L D 1984 S C 289 rel.

S.M. Rashid, Advocate instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Abdul Majid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 29th May, 1985.

In a pre‑emption suit, instituted by the respondents on 13‑4‑1974, the trial Court directed them to make up the deficiency in court‑fee according to the schedules of the net profit by 18‑7‑1974. On that date, the respondents moved an application for extension of time on the ground that as the Patwari Halqa was busy in the programme for wheat procurement, they could not obtain the relevant statement. The trial Court did not pass any order on this application. On 21‑10‑1974, the respondents applied for a decision on their application, dated 18‑7‑1974 to enable them to make up the deficiency in the court‑fee. Still no decision was given and when the matter ultimately came up on 11‑12‑1982, the trial Court dismissed the application and consequently rejected the plaint under Order VII, rule 112, C . P. C . On appeal the order was reversed and the case was remanded for passing a fresh order giving time to the respondents to make up the deficiency. The petitioners challenged this order in appeal before the High Court but the same was dismissed in limine. The view taken was that the respondents, as rightly found by the first appellate Court, had not been negligent nor was their failure to make the deficiency contumacious.

2. After hearing learned counsel we find no reason to interfere with the order of High Court, for, the same is in accord with the rule laid down by this Court in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan PLD 1984 S C 289. The petition for leave to appeal 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.