Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115,149

Law: Court Fees Act (VII of 1870)

Section: 4,13A

Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)

Section: 35

Law: Court Fees (Amendment) Ordinance (LII of 1962)

Section: 5

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 149-Court fey deficiency due to bona fide mistake of counsel unaware of change, in law-No dishonest intention proved-Opportunity to make good deficiency allowed-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 4 & Sch. I item 13A-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115 read with Court Fees (Amendment) Ordinance (LII of 1962), S. S.   Where due to bona fide mistake of the counsel a civil revision petition before the High Court was affixed with stamp of the value of Rs. 2 only whereas in fact, due to change in law introduced by section 5 of the Court-Fees (Amendment) Ordinance, 1962, the court-fee payable was Rs. 7.50, it was held, that a bona fide mistake in the matter of valuation should be condoned and an opportunity to make good deficiency should be allowed even after the period of limitation for filing petition has expired.   Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 35-Death certificate, entry in, issued by Office of Civil Surgeon-Preferred to that made in register of Union Council.   Date of hearing: 1st June 1965.   JUDGMENT   Raza Khan resident of Jama Dakhli Toppi Karak who is now dead and is represented by his legal representatives, brought a suit for possession by pre-emption of th share out of 49 kanals 16 marlas of land bearing Khasra Numbers, as specified in the heading of the plaint, situate in the area of Kunda Tehsil Karak, District Kohat.   Briefly, the facts of the case are that the disputed land belonged to one Raza Khanand others who had mortgaged it to Hasan Khan. On the basis of mutation No. 5209, attested on 14-6-61, Hasan Khan sold his mortgagee rights to Mst. Niaz Begum wife of Sanadin for the ostensible sum of Rs. 1,500. Raza Khan plaintiff alleged that the sale of mortgagee right by Hasan Khan on the basis of mutation No. 5209 was in fact the sale of the proprietary rights, as the mortgage in his favour had become time-barred and had become the owner of the suit land. Claiming superior right of pre-emption, he urged that he was a co-sharer in the suit "khata" and was the owner of the continguous land. He alleged that the suit land was sold for Rs. 120 but the inflated sum of…