Case Details

Citation(s)
1995 SLG 934 1995 SLD 934 1995 PLD 181
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 125 of 1993, decided on 31st January, 1994
IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRY, J
Allah Wasaya Malik for Petitioner.

M. ALAM KHAN

VS

JEWAN KHAN and 5 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0. VII, R.11---Deficiency in court-fee---Order of Court in such matter to be composite in nature---Where plaintiff was directed to correct valuation of suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, then he would be required not only to amend his plaint but also to pay court-fee as determined---Proper order in such case should be composite order i.e. plaintiff should be directed to amend the plaint and also to fix the proper court-fee, failure whereof, would entail rejection of plaint---Where, however, plaint had been written upon a paper insufficiently stamped, Court would simply direct plaintiff to supply requisite stamp paper within the time to be fixed by Court. Abdul Majid v. Muhammad Afzal Khokhar 1993 SCMR 1686; Jan Muhammad v. Abdul Ghafoor PLD 1966 SC 461 and Ilahi Bakhsh v. Bilqees Begum PLD 1985 SC 393 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0. VII, R.11 & S.99---Procedural mistake by Trial Court---Effect---Trial Court after hot contest, had directed plaintiff to make up deficiency in court-fee but failed to order him to amend the para of plaint relating to court­fee in accordance with the ascertained court-fee---Plaintiff did not pay proper court-fee on specified date resulting in rejection of his plaint---Appeal filed before lower Appellate Court was returned to plaintiff on the ground that it was beyond jurisdiction of Appellate Court---Plaintiffs filed revision in High Court taking plea that plaint having not been got amended , lower Appellate Court should have looked only to the para relating to court-fee in determining its jurisdiction and should not have resorted to order directing plaintiff to make up deficiency in court-fee---Procedural mistake by not requiring plaintiff to amend his plaint in terms of ascertained court-fee was not fatal and same .would not vitiate either the trial or the proceedings in view of saving provision of S.99, C.P.C. .(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----Ss. 96 & 115---Appeal---Revision---Order of rejection of plaint---Such order was appealable before High Court in view of enhanced value of the subject­matter---Revision, however, was not…
🔒
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