| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 2489 2017 SLD 2489 2017 YLR 2074 |
Peshawar High Court
W.P. No. 3834-P of 2015, decision & hearing Dated: 30-1-2017.
IKRAMULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE
Asad Jan Durrani and Amir Hussain for Petitioners. Mohib Salarzai for
Respondents.
W.P. No. 3834-P of 2015, decision & hearing Dated: 30-1-2017.
IKRAMULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE
Asad Jan Durrani and Amir Hussain for Petitioners. Mohib Salarzai for
Respondents.
GUL FARAZ
VS
MUHAMMAD FARAZ AND 2 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----Ss. 148, 149, O. VII, R. 11 & O. XX, Rr. 6 & 7---Suit for partition---Preliminary decree---Order of the court to deposit court fee within a month---Extension of prescribed time--- Scope--- Petitioner contended that the respondent/plaintiff had not deposited the court fee within a month as directed by Trial Court, so preliminary decree passed in his favour had automatically deemed to be rejected---Petitioner contended that the two courts below had wrongly dismissed his application for rejection of plaint of the respondent---Respondent contended that as the decree passed in his favour was preliminary, therefore, Trial Court was competent to extend prescribed time---Validity---Trial Court could direct the plaintiff to affix the court fee within a prescribed period at any stage of the suit and could pass a conditional decree, however, in the present case, the Trial Court had rendered its findings on the issue regarding the affixation of court fee but the same direction was omitted in the relief column as well as in the preliminary decree drawn accordingly---Case purely pertained to extension of period for deposit of required court fee---Order XX, R. 6, C.P.C., provided that the decree would agree with the and shall specify clearly the relief granted or other determination of the suit but no such direction was rendered by Trial Court while drawing the decree in terms of O. XX, R. 7, C.P.C.---Plaint could not be rejected except where the relief claimed was under value and the plaintiff on being required by court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, failed to do so---In the present case, time was fixed by the court for deposit of court fee, which was one month after the passing of the preliminary decree but the Trial Court had not corrected the valuation nor had specified the amount to be deposited by the respondent/plaintiff---Where the matter was not finally decided, the court while passing final decree had the jurisdiction to enlarge period for depositing the required court fee even if the time fixed already by the court, had expired---Court could not extend, enlarge or grant any further…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492