HIDAYAT ULLAH AND Others vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND Another
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition seeking review of an earlier order dated 14-2-1981, which had dismissed the applicants' civil petition for special leave to appeal. The core legal question involved the validity of an extension of time granted by the trial court to make up a deficient court-fee in a pre-emption suit instituted on the last day of limitation with a nominal court-fee. The High Court had previously held that the trial court's mechanical extension of time beyond the limitation period was unjustified and the applicants' conduct was contumacious, relying on precedent. The Supreme Court held that no good ground was made out for reviewing its earlier dismissal order, as the points urged regarding the unchallenging of the trial court's initial order and compliance within permitted time had already been addressed expressly or impliedly. The Court reaffirmed that extending time to make up court-fee in a manner that condones contumacious conduct and circumvents limitation is impermissible.
- Whether an order of the trial court extending time to make up a deficient court-fee can be challenged when the extension is granted beyond the period of limitation?
- Does the institution of a pre-emption suit with a nominal court-fee on the last day of limitation amount to contumacious conduct?
- Are there sufficient grounds for review when the points urged in the review petition were already dealt with expressly or impliedly in the original order?
ORDER
M. S. H. QUREM, J.-This application seeks a review of the order of this Court passed on 14-2-1981 whereby the applicants' Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1094 of 1980 was dismissed.
2. The applicants had brought a pre-emption suit on 12-7-1976 which was the last date for filing the suit. They had affixed court-fee of Rs.10 only whereas the court-fee payable was Rs.5,485. Before the trial Court they had, no doubt, applied for and had been granted time till 21-9-1976 for making up the deficiency in the court-fee but this had been objected to by the defendants. The High Court had held that the trial Court was not justified in mechanically extending the time beyond the period of limitation and that the conduct of the applicants in instituting the suit by affixing a nominal court-fee of Rs.10, was contumacious. The judgment of the High Court is Sohara v. Rashid Ahmad and others (PLD 1981 Lah. 261) and was based on a recent judgment of this Court Mst. Walayat Khatun v. Khalil and another (PLD 1979 SC 821).
This Court, not finding any fault with the order of the High Court, had dismissed the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal. See Hidayatullah and others v. Muhammad Ibrahim and another (1981 SCMR 381).
3. It has been urged that the order of the trial Court passed o 12-7-1976 extending the time, had itself not been challenged, that the said order had been passed when the period of limitation had not yet expired an that the applicants had complied with the order of the trial Court by making up by deficiency within the time permitted. All these points had been, expres--sly or impliedly, dealt with in this Court's order dated 14-2-1981 and as suc we find, no good ground to review the same.
The application is dismissed.