| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 666 1992 SLD 666 1992 SCMR 1306 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.591 of 1988, decision dated: 22-05-1991(On appeal from the judgment dated 6-3-1983 of the Lahore High Court passed in Regular Second Appeal No.139 of 1978)
NASIM HASAN SHAH, ACTG C.J. AND SAAD SAOOD, JAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No.591 of 1988, decision dated: 22-05-1991(On appeal from the judgment dated 6-3-1983 of the Lahore High Court passed in Regular Second Appeal No.139 of 1978)
NASIM HASAN SHAH, ACTG C.J. AND SAAD SAOOD, JAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
SEWA
Mst. SANTI and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--S. 1050) & O.VII, R.11---Rejection of plaint for deficiency of court-fee--Plaintiff did not appeal against Trial Court's order directing him to pay proper court-fee, but filing appeal against rejection of plaint---Effect---Order of Court directing plaintiff to pay proper court-fee was not appealable; apart from it plaintiff had option to postpone challenge to said order till a final order viz. of rejection of plaint had been passed against him---Plaintiff, under provision of S. 1051), Civil Procedure Code, while preferring appeal against rejection of plaint could call in question legality of order directing him to pay proper court-fee---Finding of Courts below that order of Trial Court directing plaintiff to pay proper court-fee having not been challenged had become final, was erroneous;' Courts below should have considered plaintiffs assertion that he had paid proper amount of court-fee. (b) Civil Procedure Code (v of 1908)--- ----O.VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint for non-payment of proper court-fee--Plaintiff in appeal against rejection of plaint could call in question legality of order directing him to pay proper court-fee. (c) Court Fees Act (VII of 1870)-- ----S. 7(iv)(c)---Suit for declaration and consequential relief-: -Question whether plaint lore proper amount of court-fee had to be decided in accordance with provisions of Court Fees Act, as they stood on the day when suit was filed viz. 3-2-1971---Plaintiff had discretion allowed to him by law, to value the relief sought by him---Trial Court had no power to interfere with plaintiff's discretion---Finding of Courts below that plaint did not bear proper amount of court-fee was not warranted---Case was remanded to be disposed of in accordance with law. JUDGMENT SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 6-3-1983 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the second appeal preferred by the appellant. 2. One Bahali who was a, Christian by faith died in 1967. He owned 1/9th share in occupancy rights in respect of 248 Kanals and 16 Marlas of land in village Saraich of Tehsil Lahore. On 23-4-1969 a mutation of inheritance was attested…
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