Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 103 and 104 of 1986, decided on 26th March, 1986.

(Against the judgments of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, dated 9‑12‑1985, passed in Civil Revision No.126/D/ 1982‑BWP .) .

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art.

185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11‑‑Court fee‑‑Petitioner objecting to payment of court‑fee on ground that proper statement of net profits was not produced‑‑Objection overruled and plaint of respondent not rejected‑‑Order upheld in appeal and revision‑‑High Court holding that Court‑fee paid was proper‑‑Plea that High Court should not have relied upon certain documents, repelled, being hyper technical in circumstances of case‑‑No contravention of law having been committed by respondents so as to incur liability under O. V11, R.11, C.P.C. impugned order, held, was not open to interference‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Sahahna Khan v. Aulia Khan P L D 1984 S C 157 rel.

Ch. Muhammadul Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmed Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M . Aslam Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 26th March, 1986.

.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions from judgment, dated 9‑12‑1985 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners' (vendees/defendants) 'revisions arising out of respondents' suits, were dismissed.

The short point involved was of court‑fee. The petitioners had objected to the levy of the court‑fee before the trial Court on the basis that proper statement of net profits had not been produced. Their objection was over ruled and the respondents' plaint was not rejected under Order VII, Rule 11. The petitioners having failed in the appellate and revisional Court have Dow sought leave to appeal.

The High Court has noted that even if the correct statement of net profits would have been produced the court‑fee paid would have been proper. The objection of the learned counsel that the High Court should not have relied upon certain document, is hyper technical in the circumstances of this case. Be that as it may no such contravention of law had been committed by the respondents so as to incur a liability under Order VII, Rule 11. The case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan P L D 1984 S C 157.

No justification has been made out for interference. Leave to appeal accordingly, is refused.

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.