Case Details

Citation(s)
1984 SLG 1014 1984 SLD 1014 1984 SCMR 1531
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 483 of 1977, decision dated: 28-05-1984 (On appeal from the Judgment, dated 8-6-1977 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No. 388 of 1976)
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

BASHIR AHMAD and anothers

VS

. IRSHAD MUHAMMAD KHAN and others--Respondents

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)------Art.185(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115--Court-fee-­Leave to appeal granted to consider questions (i) whether order of District Judge allowing petitioner to make up deficiency in court-fee on appeal and adjourning case for assessment of court-fee was not contrary to law and (ii) whether on finding order of District Judge to be contrary to law it was necessary for High Court to remand case back to him instead of deciding same itself. [Court-feel Muhammad Sharif v. Maqsood Ali and others 1984 SCMR 590 ref. Sardar Ata Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th May, 1984. ORDER NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- The petitioners herein brought a suit to pre-empt the sale of a piece of an agricultural land sold by respondent No. 5, to the predecessors-in-interest of respondents 1 to 4 on the basis of a registered sale-deed, dated 20th August, 1964. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court and an appeal was filed by the petitioners hereinbefore the District Judge, Gujranwala, against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. A question arose before him whether the correct court-fee was paid on the memorandum of appeal? On the plaint filed in the trial Court, court-fee was paid at ten times the land revenue according to the law prevailing at that time, On the memorandum of appeal also the same court-fee was affixed. The office, however, reported that the court-fee should have been paid on 15 times net profits of the preceding year in accordance with the provisions of the recently promulgated Finance Act, 1973. Here it may be mentioned that the appeal was filed on 1st September, 1973 after the promulgation of the Finance Act, 1973, which came into force on 1st July, 1973. It appears that the objection of the office was not brought to the notice of the learned District Judge when the matter came up for hearing before him on 3rd September, 1973. Accordingly, he admitted the appeal and ordered issuance of notice to the respondents. When the respondents appeared, they took an objection to the maintainability of the appeal and submitted that it was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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