MUHAMMAD NASARULLAH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AYAZ KHAN AND Another
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a trial court could pass a conditional decree in a pre-emption suit requiring the plaintiff to make up a deficiency in court fees, with the consequence that failure to do so would result in the automatic dismissal of the plaint. The petitioner argued that such a conditional order was improper. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, agreeing that the trial court acted within its authority to pass a conditional order requiring the payment of court fees. The Court affirmed that the failure to make up the deficiency in court fees, despite the deposit of pre-emption money, justified the dismissal of the suit. The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural requirements regarding court fees must be strictly complied with and that trial courts possess the discretion to impose conditional orders to ensure such compliance.
- Can a trial court pass a conditional decree in a pre-emption suit requiring the payment of court fees under penalty of dismissal?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to an extension of time to make up a deficiency in court fees if no sufficient cause is shown?
- Does the failure to make up a deficiency in court fees justify the dismissal of a pre-emption suit?
- Section 148, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 149, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 20-8-1974 whereby the appeal of the petitioner herein (R. F. A. No. 14/73) was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the petitioner-plaintiff brought a suit for pre-emption of a piece of agricultural land measuring 2 kanals 17 marlas situated in village Tarf Mubarik Awwal, Tehsil and District Multan. According to the plaintiff-petitioner although the ostensible value of the land was shown as Rs. 45,000, it was sold only for a sum of Rs. 9,000. The suit was valued by the plaintiff-petitioner for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction according to 15 times and 30 times of the net profit in the preceding year amounting to Rs. 5,310 and Rs. 10,620 respectively.
3. The trial Court upheld the superior rights of pre-emption of the plaintiff---petitioner and directed him to deposit Rs. 45,000 less 1/5th of pre-emption amount within a period of one month or else his suit shall stand dismissed with costs. It appears that in pursuance of this order, the petitioner- plaintiff deposited the pre-emption money on 28-11-1972 but did not make up the deficiency in the Court Fee. The judgment and decree was passed in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff in these terms by the Civil Judge, Multan on 30-10-1972. The petitioner challenged the findings of the trial Court pertaining to Court Fee, sale price and market value of the suit land by an appeal (R. F. A. No. 14/73).
4. It appears that although the balance of the pre-emption money was paid on 28-11-1972, the deficiency on the Court Fee was not made up. The petitioner, therefore, in his appeal directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge also filed an application under section 149/148 read with section 151, Cr. P. C. For grant of extension of time for making up in the deficiency of Court Fee. It was urged by him that he had no information that .He had to pay Court Fee and for this reason he was not able to comply with the order although he had deposited the pre-emption money on the 28th of November 1972.
5. The learned Single Judge in the High Court, however, dismissed the appeal holding that the learned trial Court could have passed a conditional order calling upon the petitioner-plaintiff to make up the deficiency in the Court Fee failing which the plaint would stand rejected and that no sufficient cause was shown for enlargement of time to make up the deficiency in the Court Fee.
6. Before us Mr. Muhammad Ismail Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, did not challenge the fact that there was a deficiency in the Court Fee but only challenged the manner in which the petitioner-plaintiff was required to make it up. In other words, he has reiterated the same argument that was raised in the High Court, namely, that a conditional decree could not be passed, which in the event of non-compliance would automatically result in the dismissal of the plaint. This contention has been dealt with at great length and with great thoroughness in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and has been answered in the negative.
7. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge while rejecting this contention and cannot usefully add to the reasons assigned by him in taking the view. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby.