Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Revision No.332‑D of 1982, decided on 3rd July, 1983.
‑‑‑0. VII, R. 11‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 10‑‑Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 10‑‑Limitation for filing pre‑emption suit Deficiency in court‑fee‑‑Making up of‑‑Rejection of plaint‑‑Plaint in pre‑emption suit filed within prescribed time, held, could not be rejected under N 0. VII, R 11, C.P. C. as being barred by time where deficiency in curt‑Pee was made up by plaintiff in compliance with directions of Trial Court, even after expiry of limitation prescribed for filing such suit
Mst. Parveen Begum v. Mst. Jamsheda Begum etc. P L D 1983 SC 22; ref.
Asif Saeed Khosa for Petitioners.
Date of hearing: 3rd July, 1983
On 20‑10‑1969, Abdul Rashid respondent filed a suit for possession by pre‑emption against Rahim Bakhsh and others, the petitioners/ defendants. The suit was resisted whereon 8 issues were framed. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 5‑4‑1981. Feeling aggrieved Abdul Rashid respondent filed appeal which was accepted by Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh on 26‑5‑1982, decreeing the suit of the respondent.
2. Before me, the findings of Additional District Judge on issues Nos. l, 2 and 3 have been challenged which are as under:‑
"Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court‑fee and jurisdiction 0. P. P.
"Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff had affixed less court‑fee on the plaint intentionally at the time of the institution of the suit O.P.D.
Whether the suit is time‑barred O. P . D.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the suit was filed on a plaint. stamped with a nominal court‑fee of Re.l and 2 Annas hoe plaint was registered on 23‑10‑1969. The respondent /plaintiff, however, on 26‑11‑1969 i.e. after the expiry of limitation for filing suit for pre‑emption, paid the court‑fee. The trial Court mechanically recorded that the deficiency in court‑fee has been made up. Thereafter the suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 5‑4‑1981 as barred by time on the ground that the deficiency in court‑fee was made up after the expiry of limitation. Despite this, the Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court on this issue and decreed the suit without legal justification.
3. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record I find that the 3 issues are inter‑connected. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court as barred by time on the ground that when the suit was instituted, it was nominally stamped and that the court‑fee was made up after the expiry of limitation prescribed for filing suit for pre‑emption. I am of the opinion that since the plaint was admittedly filed within time, therefore, it cannot be said that the suit was barred by time. As far the deficiency in court‑fee, I find that since the deficiency was made up on 26‑11‑1969 and the directions by the trial A Court were never violated, therefore, the plaint could also not been rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C . P . C . I stand fortified by case 'Mst. Parveen Begum v. Mst. Jamsheda Begum etc. reported as P L D 1983 S C 227.
4. For what has been stated above, there being no merit in this revision, the same is dismissed in limine.
H.B.T./668/L Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer