Find a Lawyer

----Art. 199--Law Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115), para. 25- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0. VII, R. 11(c)--West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 164--Pre-emption suit--Deficiency in court-fee--Making good of--Appellate Court reversed findings recorded by Trial Court on issue of making good deficiency in court-fee within specified time--Board of Revenue on revision petition by pre-emptor, in non-speaking order without adverting to respective contentions of parties upheld findings of appellate Court--As findings of trial Court were reversed by Appellate Court, it was, held, incumbent upon Board of Revenue to have evaluated reasons which weighed with two Courts below in deciding issue about deficiency in court-fee--High Court in constitutional jurisdiction declared lacunary order passed by Member, Board of Revenue, to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Malik Noor Muhammad Awan for Petitioner.

Jahangir Ashraf Vains for Respondents

Nos. 2 and 3. Date of hearing: 21st January, 1986.

Sher Muhammad petitioner, sued respondents Nos'. 2 and 3, for possession of the land in dispute, through exercise of right of pre-emption, on the ground that the land comprised in his tenancy. It appears that initially the plaint was not properly stamped and the Collector passed an order directing the petitioner to make good deficiency in the court-fee by 15-9-1976. This time limit was then enlarged upto 12-10-1976. The controversy as to whether or not the deficiency was made good within the specified period, is reflected by issue No.2. On this issue, the learned Collector maintained that the petitioner deposited in the treasury, the requisite amount for obtaining the court-fee stamps on 12-10-1976, which were issued to him on 13-10-1976, and he placed these on the trial Court's file on the same date. Issue No.2, was thus, answered against the respondent. As the Collector's findings on other material issues were in favour of the petitioner, the suit was decreed.

2. The vendee-respondents went in appeal. The learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) who heard it, was of the view that the deficiency to be made upto 12-10-1976 and whereas the court-fee stamps were filed by the petition in the trial Court on 18-10-1976. He, therefore, reversed the Collector's finding on issue No.2, accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit.

3. This dismissal was called in question by the plaintiff /petitioner through a revision before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, but it could not succeed and was dismissed by him by a very short order. devoid, of reasons. The operative part whereof is reproduced below:-

"I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower Courts. The contentions raised by the counsel from both sides have been considered. I see no justification to interfere with the well-based impugned order. The revision petition is dismissed."

This order has been brought under challenge in this writ petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. The argument of the petitioner's learned counsel is that in order to purchase the Court-fee stamps, the requisite amount was deposited by him in the treasury on 12-10-1976, but stamp papers were made available to him on the following day and he filed the same in the Court as soon as these were furnished to him. In his submission, there was no delay or negligence on his part in complying with the orders of the trial Court.

5. Against this, the respondent's argument is that twice the time was enlarged for payment of the court-fee. There was sufficient time at the petitioner's disposal to make good the deficiency but he acted negligently and deposited the amount in the treasury on the last date. It is also contended that though the stamp-papers were issued to the petitioner on 13-10-1976 but he presented these to the Court on 18-10-1976. This according to the respondent's learned counsel, was another act demonstrative of the petitioner's negligent conduct.

6. It is to be noticed that according to the Collector, the stamp-papers were filed on 13-10-1976 whereas the appellate authority has recorded a finding that these were produced on 18-10-1976. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, while disposing of the revision petition has not at all adverted to the respective contentions of the parties. As the findings recorded by the Collector were reversed by the appellate authority, it was, therefore, incumbent upon the learned Member, Board of Revenue to have evaluated the reasons which weighed with the two Courts below in, deciding issue No.2. However, as observed above, his order is completely silent in this respect. The learned counsel for both the parties, without prejudice to the respective merits of their case, state that the impugned order is lacunary and does not at all satisfy the requirement of law. It being so this writ petition is accepted, the impugned order declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Consequently, the petitioner's revision before the learned Member, Board of Revenue shall be treated as pending and disposed of afresh in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs and directed to appear before the learned Member, Board of Revenue on 11-2-1986.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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