YAROON KHAN vs LAL ZADA
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court regarding the dismissal of a suit due to the non-payment of court fees. The petitioner contends that the default in depositing the court fee was not willful, arguing that the trial court failed to issue a specific direction for the deposit of a precise amount and did not grant reasonable time for compliance. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that the High Court failed to properly appreciate the circumstances of the case and seeks an opportunity to rectify the deficiency. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the lower courts erred in their concurrent dismissal of the suit without providing the petitioner a fair opportunity to deposit the deficient court fee, particularly in the absence of a specific judicial order directing such payment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions in detail, focusing on the procedural fairness and the exercise of judicial discretion regarding the payment of court fees.
- Can a suit be dismissed for non-payment of court fees without a specific direction from the trial court to deposit a precise amount?
- Is it a valid ground for appeal that the trial court failed to grant reasonable time to make up a deficiency in court fees?
- Does the failure to willfully pay court fees justify the dismissal of a suit if the petitioner is willing to rectify the deficiency upon being granted an opportunity?
ORDER ljaz-ul-Hassan, J.---Mr. Maazullah Barkandi, Advocate for the petitioner, contended that petitioner had not committed default willfully; that learned trial Court had not directed the petitioner to deposit a specific Court fee; that learned trial Court as well as learned appellate Court has not granted reasonable time to the petitioner to deposit the Court fee; that learned High Court has not appreciated the matter in its true perspective while upholding the concurrent findings of the two Courts below and even now if opportunity is given, petitioner is ready to make up deficient Court fee. Reliance in this context was placed on Mian Khan vs. Aurangzeb and 12 others (1989 SCM R 58) and Memon Educational Board and Society, Karachi, Karachi vs. Munawar Hussain (2003 SCMR 157).
2. Leave to appeal is granted in this petition to examined in detail the above contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.