Find a Lawyer

Regular First Appeal No. 88 of 1982, decided on 19th January, 1987.

‑‑O. VII, R.11‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S.15‑‑Plaint‑ Rejection of plaint‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑‑Trial Court ordering that summons be issued to defendants‑respondents for 6‑4‑1982 and directing that amended plaint alongwith deficiency to be made in court‑fee be put in before the said date‑‑Appellant making up deficiency in court‑fee on 6‑4‑1982‑‑Trial Court considering appellant's act of filing suit on last day of limitation to be mala fide negligent and contumacious rejecting plaint‑‑Plaint found to have been rejected by Trial Court without determining exact amount of court‑fee payable on plaint and without ordering appellant to pay definite amount of court‑fee by a specified date‑‑Order, held, was patently illegal and could not stand test of scrutiny and consequently set aside‑‑Suit remanded to Trial Court for disposal according to law.

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

Zahid Hussain Khan for Appellant.

Chaudhry Hafeez Ahmad for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 19th January, 1987.

.‑‑ The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal against the order of rejection of plaint of the appellant's suit for possession by pre‑emption of 430 Kanals 15 Marlas of the land in dispute situate in the area of village Jaba, Tehsil and District Khushab, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jauharabad, on the 4th May, 1982, may be shortly stated. One Masood Ahmad Khan sold the land in question to respondents 1 to 4 and Mutation No. 30 touching the sale was attested on the 8th March, 1981. The appellant instituted suit on 8th March, 1982, to pre‑empt the sale. The rival pre‑emptors, respondents 5 to 10, filed similar suit the same day. The next day the learned trial Court ordered that summons be issued to the defendants‑respondents 1 to 4 for the 6th April, 1982, and directed that the statement of net profits be prepared and amended plaint alongwith deficiency in court‑fee be put in before the last mentioned date. It was on the 6th April, 1982, that the appellant made up deficiency in court‑fee. The learned trial Court considered the appellant's act of filing the suit on the last day of the period of limitation prescribed for institution of suit without payment of proper court‑fee to be mala fide, negligent and contumacious and as the deficient amount of court‑fee had been paid after the expiry of period of limitation it treated the suit to be time‑barred and rejected the plaint.

2. Admittedly the learned trial Court did not determine the exact amount of court‑fee payable on the plaint nor did it order the appellant to pay definite amount of court‑fee by a specified date. Without doing so it could not, in view of what has been ruled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan P L D 1984 SC' 289, proceed to reject the plaint. The impugned order is patently illegal and cannot stand the test of scrutiny by this Court. The appeal is consequently accepted, the order under appeal is set aside and the suit is remanded to the learned trial Court for disposal according to law. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the suit within six months and report compliance to this Court. The parties have been directed to appear before the learned trial Court on the 15th February, 1987. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

S. Q. /G‑3/L Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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