KHURSHID vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND Another
This matter concerns a pre-emption suit where the plaintiffs initially affixed a deficient court fee of Rs. 2.00 upon the institution of the suit on July 17, 1974. The deficiency remained unrectified for nearly six years until January 19, 1979, shortly before the trial court passed a decree. While the appellate court remanded the matter, the Member, Board of Revenue, subsequently non-suited the plaintiffs due to the prolonged failure to pay the requisite court fee. The High Court, exercising constitutional jurisdiction, set aside the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, reasoning that the issue of late payment of court fees could not be introduced belatedly if it had not been raised during the suit or in the memorandum of appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court's interference with the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, was legally justified within the scope of its constitutional jurisdiction.
- Can the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction interfere with an order of the Member, Board of Revenue, regarding the late payment of court fees?
- Is it permissible to raise the issue of late payment of court fees for the first time after the suit and appeal stages?
ORDER
M. S. H. QURESHI, J.-In this case respondents 1 and 2 had affixed court-fee of Rs. 2.00 only on their plaint when they instituted the pre-emption suit on 17-7-1974. They did not make up the deficiency within the time allowed by the Court. They made it up on 19-1-1979, just a few days before the decree was passed. The appellate Court took notice of it and remanded the matter to the trial Court for a fresh decision. In revision, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, on-suited them on account of their not having made up the deficiency in the Court-fee for six years. The High Court, however, held the decision to be unlawful and of no legal effect on the view that the question of late payment of the Court-fee, which had not been taken in the suit or the memorandum of appeal, could not be imported belatedly. Leave is granted to consider whether the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction could have interfered with the order of the Member, Board of Revenue.
Security Rs. 2.000.00 (Rupees two thousand only).
2. Mailk Talib Hussain Awan, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
3. Pending the disposal of the appeal, the proceedings before the trial Court shall be stayed.