ABDUR RASHID And Another vs GHULAM MAULA And Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision petition by the High Court, which upheld the trial court's order rejecting the petitioner's objection regarding the delayed filing of a court-fee stamp in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerns the exercise of judicial discretion in condoning a short delay in making up a deficiency in court-fee and whether such conduct amounted to extreme contumacy warranting the rejection of the plaint. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's discretion was properly exercised and not interfered with by the High Court, declining to examine the merits further. The key principle laid down is that where a court exercises its discretion to allow a short delay in filing court-fees pursuant to established precedents such as Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan and Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan, such exercise of discretion will not be lightly interfered with by the appellate or revisional courts unless it is shown to be improperly exercised.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the trial court's discretion in accepting a delayed court-fee stamp?
- Does a short delay in making up a deficiency in court-fee constitute contumacious conduct warranting the rejection of a plaint?
- Is leave to appeal granted when the lower courts have properly exercised their discretion regarding the filing of court-fees in accordance with established precedents?
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--After contest but ultimately conceding the plaintiff pre-emptor were called upon to make up the deficiency in court-fee by 9th of April, 1976. The court-fee stamp was purchased within the but filed to days later. The objection of the petitioner for rejection of plaint was rejected by the trial Court on 21-7-1976. The revision petition was dismissed by the High Court observing that there is only a delay of to days in the filing. It held that the exercise of discretion by the trial Court was proper and did not require interference.
2. Mr. Riaz Anwar the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the conduct of the plaintiff- respondents examined in the context of the contest between the parties clearly appeared to be contumacious in the extreme. They had forfeited any claim to indulgence or exercise of discretion.
3. They should have been penalised for it.
4. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan and others PLD 1984 SC 157 and Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan PLD 1984 SC 289 and the rationale underlying, we consider this not to be a fit case for any further examination as a discretion vested in the Court has been exercised and found not to be improperly exercised. There is no question of further going into the merits of it. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.