| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2000 SLG 1896 2000 SLD 1896 2000 CLC 939 |
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No. 131 of 1981, decision dated: 1st November, 1999, hearing DATE : 19-10-1999
MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J
Aamer Sohail Saleemi for Appellants. Muhammad Nazir Janjua for
Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 131 of 1981, decision dated: 1st November, 1999, hearing DATE : 19-10-1999
MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J
Aamer Sohail Saleemi for Appellants. Muhammad Nazir Janjua for
Respondent
GHULAM RASOOL and 3 others
VS
AHMAD through Legal Heirs
Law:
Section:
Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)------Ss. 4 & 15---Pre-emption suit---Deficiency in court-fee---Controversy with regard to making up of deficiency in court-fee---Trial Court ordered for making up of such deficiency but failed to specify the amount of deficiency---Trial Court, although admitted the superior right. of preemption of the pre-emptor yet dismissed the suit on the ground of making up of the deficiency on the date fixed and not before that date as the same was ordered---Appellate Court reversed the findings in appeals and decreed the suit---Validity---Where valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was not determined by the Trial Court the suit of the pre-emptor could not be dismissed, even if such order of the Trial Court was not complied with ---Pre-emptor applied for extension of one day time of making up of deficiency in court-fee as the court-fee was not available---Although no order was passed on that application yet the court-fee was accepted in presence of the other party without any objection---Findings of Trial Court on the point of court-fee was rightly reversed by the Lower Appellate Court in circumstances. Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan and others PLD 1984 SC 157; Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another PLD 1984 SC 289 and Muhammad Hanif v. Muhammad PLD 1990 SC 859 rel. JUDGMENT This is a defendants' second appeal from the judgment and decree, dated 5-5-1980 of the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang whereby while reversing the decree of the Civil Court, dated 12-4-1980 he decreed the suit of the respondent. 2.In view of the limited nature of controversy it is not essential to state the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that the dispute arises out of a suit for possession through pre-emption brought by the respondent against the appellant which was contested by them by filing a written statement in which various objections inter alia as to the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction had been raised. The learned trial Court framed the necessary issues. Issue No.l which is important for the present purposes reads as under:-- The learned trial Court found that…
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