Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 149

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 5,14

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185

Law: Court Fees Act, 1870

Section: 7(iv)

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.149---Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7(iv)---Deficiency in court-fee--­ on-compliance with order of Court to make up the deficiency---High Court directed to make up the deficiency in the court-fee both on the plaint in the suit as well as in the memo. of appeal before the High Court in terms of order of First Appellate Court which required the plaintiff to pay court-fee ad valorem on a certain amount, without providing any time for such payment---High Court again did not specify time for payment of court-fee-:-Plaintiff, however, paid the requisite court-fee on the memo. of appeal before the High Court but no court­-fee was paid on the plaint till the appeal before Supreme Court---Effect---Order regarding payment of court-fee, held, had not been complied with by the plaintiff in circumstances. (b) Limitation Act (IX of.1908)--- ----Ss. 5 & 14---Delay in filing appeal before High Court ---Condonation of delay---Application of S. 14, Limitation Act, 1908---Extent---Held, although S. 10, Limitation Act, 1908 did not apply to appeals as such but the principle underlying said provisions, in an appropriate case, could be taken into consideration for condoning the delay in filing appeal under S. 5, Limitation Act, 1908. Sherin v. Fazal Mahmood 1995 SCMR 584; Abdul Ghani v. Ghulam Sarwar PLD 1977 SC 102; Ghulam Ali v. Akbar PLD 1991 SC 957; Aizad Bakhsh v. Muhammad Afzal 198.5 SCMR 1003 and Mahmooda Begum v. Muhammad Ishaq 1984 SCMR 890 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 185---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 14 & 5---Appeal to Supreme Court ---Condonation of delay by High Court---Discretion exercised by High Court---Supreme Court, generally would not interfere with exercise of discretion by the High Court, if High Court had condoned the delay in filing appeal in exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Court by law. (d) Muhammadan Law--- ---- Gift---Property in question had remained in possession of the Court of Wards for about 16 years till restoration to the donor---Record did not show that possession of said property alleged to have been gifted to donees had been delivered to them---Failure of…

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