GHULAM HUSSAIN And Another vs Malik SHAHBAZ KHAN And Another
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil pre-emption suit where the trial court permitted the plaintiffs to rectify a deficiency in court-fee. The defendants successfully challenged this order in a civil revision before an Additional District Judge, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiffs' subsequent constitutional writ petition by the Lahore High Court. The High Court declined to interfere, noting that the revisional order did not result in the rejection of the plaint, thereby leaving the plaintiffs with an adequate alternative remedy of appeal should the plaint eventually be rejected. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction in light of the availability of an alternative remedy. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's refusal to interfere was justified. The Court affirmed that a revisional order regarding court-fee deficiency does not preclude the plaintiffs from challenging the matter through a regular appeal if the suit is ultimately dismissed or the plaint rejected, thus establishing that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked when other adequate legal remedies remain available.
- Does a revisional order regarding court-fee deficiency operate as a bar to raising the same issue in a regular appeal against the rejection of a plaint?
- Is a constitutional writ petition maintainable against an order in a civil revision when an alternative remedy of appeal is available?
- Does the High Court have justification to decline interference in a civil matter where the petitioner has not exhausted regular appellate remedies?
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from Order dated 12-3-1983 of the Lahore High Court whereby a Constitutional writ petition arising out of a civil pre-emption suit, was dismissed.
2. The petitioners plaintiffs were permitted by the trial Court to supply the deficiency in court-fee.
The defendants respondents challenged the order of the trial Court in this behalf in Civil Revision which was allowed by a learned Additional District Judge. The petitioners then moved a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed, therefore, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned Judge in the High Court while dismissing the writ petition noted that as a result of the revisional order the plaint had not been rejected, meaning thereby, that if rejected the petitioner would have a right of appeal. Therefore, obviously the High Court was not inclined to interfere in the matter which had arisen out of a civil suit.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the learned Additional District Judge has ignored the latest law declared by this Court on the question of the deficiency in court-fee. When questioned, however, as to why this very point cannot be raised before the appellate forum if and when the plaint is rejected on the basis of deficient court-fee, learned counsel replied that the revisional order might operate as a bar.
5. We do not agree with him. The order of the High court is sufficiently indicative of the fact that the revisional order will not be a bar when regular remedy by way of appeal is sought by the petitioners against either the dismissal of the suit or against the rejection of the plaint.
6. With the observation that in case of need there being other adequate remedy available to the petitioners, we do not find any justification for interference. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 17 cases
- RIASAT ALI Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF 2026 PLD 200
- Muhammad Umar Ramzan vs Arfeen Ejaz and others 2023 MLD 1875
- Muhammad Amin Shah vs Additional District Judge, Faisalabad etc 2022 PLJ Lahore 529
- MANZAR ALAM vs Malik MUHAMMAD YAMIN and another 2019 YLR 598
- MUHAMMAD NASEER ABBASI vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & others 2016 PLJ Islamabad 105
- MUHAMMAD NASEER ABBASI Versus CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2016 CLC 343
- MUHAMMAD NASEER ABBASI vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS. 2015-IHC-165
- INAYAT BEGUM and 9 others vs SHAH MUHAMMAD and otherss 2014 YLR 1797
- ABDUL KHALIQ and others vs KHUDAEDAD and others 2008 YLR 781
- MUHAMMAD ISLAM vs S.H.O., POLICE STATION FACTORY AREA, SARGODHA and 2 others 2007 YLR 522
- PHILIPS ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs THE 2ND SINDH LABOUR 2000 PLC 14
- NASIR RAZA JAFERY Versus MACTER PHARMACEUTICAL PVT. LTD. 1998 PLD 250
- Mst. WAZIR BEGUM Alias WAZIRAN BIBI vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ARIFWALA, DISTRICT PAKPATTAN SHARIF And OTHER 1997 CLC 1654
- MULTAN KHAN vs CANTONMENT BOARD, NOWSHERA through Cantonment 1995 CLC 1297
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD And Others vs MUNIR AHMAD SHAH And OTHER 1994 CLC 14
- MUHAMMAD KHAN And 6 Others vs Mst. GHULAM FATIMA And 12 Other 1991 SCMR 970
- Mian MUHAMMAD AKRAM And Others vs MUHAMMAD RAFI 1989 CLC 15