Yaroon Khan vs Lal Zada
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the concurrent findings of the Trial Court, 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 payment was not willful, arguing that the Trial Court failed to direct the petitioner to deposit a specific amount of court fee and did not provide a reasonable opportunity to rectify the deficiency. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that the High Court failed to properly appreciate these circumstances when upholding the lower courts' decisions. The petitioner expresses a willingness to deposit the deficient court fee if granted an opportunity. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit without providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to cure the deficiency in court fees, particularly where the default was allegedly not willful. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions in detail, specifically focusing on whether the procedural handling of the court fee deficiency warrants interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
- Does the failure of a trial court to specify the exact amount of court fee to be deposited constitute a valid ground for setting aside a dismissal based on non-payment?
- Is a party entitled to a reasonable opportunity to make up a deficiency in court fees before a suit is dismissed for non-payment?
- Under what circumstances can concurrent findings of lower courts regarding procedural default be reviewed by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
IJAZ-UL-HASSAN, J. - Mr. Mazullah Barkandi, Advocate for the petitioner, contended that petitioner had not committed default wilfully; 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 v. Aurangzeb and 12 others (1989 SCM R 58) and Memon Educational Board and Society, Karachi v. Munawar Hussain (2003 SCM R 157).
2. Leave to appeal is granted in this petition to examine in detail the above contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.