Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 3121 = 1981 SLD 3121 = 1981 SCMR 381
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1094 of 1980, heard on 14th February, 1981. (On petition against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 20-4-1980 passed in Civil Revision No. 350/1977).
Presented By: Karam Elahee Chauhan and Mushtaq Hussain, JJ
Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record and Q. M. Saleem, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Date of hearing : 14th February, 1981 (Lahore).

HIDAYATULLAH AND OTHERS-Petitioners

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND OTHERS-Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 149, O. VII, r. 11(c)

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)  S. 149 & O. VII, r. 11(c)-Court-fee-Deficiency-Permission to make good-Provisions of O. VII, r. 11(c) and S. 149 of Civil Pro cedure Code, 1908-To be read and applied together where deficiency in court-fee required to be made good after expiry of period of limita tion-Act of not paying proper amount of court-fee contumacious or actuated by tnala fides-Court not to grant indulgence to plaintiff of permitting him to make good court-fee after expiry of period of limitation-Court-fee amounting to Rs. 5,485 but only a sum of Rs. 10 pair) as court-fee and suit also filed on last date of period of limitation Conduct of plaintiff being actuated by mala fides, lower Court, held, rightly refused to permit plaintiff to make good deficiency in court fee. Mst. Walayat Khatum v. Khalil Khan and another P L D 1979 S C 821 ref.                                                                                                                                        ORDER MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-The petitioners filed a civil suit for possession by pre-emption on the last date of the period of limitation. Full court-fee was not paid and an averment was made in the plaint that the definiency will be made good in due course. The learned counsel for the defendants raised a preliminary objection and demanded that the plaint should be rejected because it was not properly stamped for the purpose of court-fee when it was presented to the Court. He also assailed the order of the Court in allowing the plaintiff to make good the deficiency within a particular period. The learned Civil Judge by his order dated 17-1-1977 rejected the application. 2. A revision petition was filed by the defendants which was accepted by the High Court. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal by the plaintiff. 3. It has been urged…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register