GHULAM YASIN And Others vs ARSHAD A1.1 SHAH And Another
This matter arises from a pre-emption suit instituted by the respondents in April 1974, where the trial court directed them to make up a deficiency in the court-fee. The respondents repeatedly sought extensions of time to obtain the necessary statements from the revenue officials, but the trial court failed to pass orders on these applications for years, ultimately dismissing the application and rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The first appellate court reversed this order and remanded the case, finding no negligence or contumacious conduct by the respondents, which decision was affirmed in limine by the High Court. The core legal question concerned the propriety of rejecting a plaint for failure to supply court-fee deficiency where the delay was not attributable to the plaintiff's negligence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the High Court's view was in accordance with the established rule laid down in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan.
- Whether a plaint can be rejected for non-payment of court-fee deficiency when the delay is caused by pending applications for extension and lack of official records without plaintiff's negligence?
- Does the failure of a trial court to pass orders on an application for extension of time to make up court-fee prejudice the plaintiff's right to rectify the deficiency?
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--In a pre-emption suit, instituted by the respondents on 13-4-1974, the trial Court directed them to make up the deficiency in court-fee according to the schedules of the net profit by 18-7-1974. On that date, the respondents moved an application for extension of the on the ground that as the Patwari Halqa was busy in the programme for wheat procurement, they could not obtain the relevant statement. The trial Court did not pass any order on this application. On 21- 10-1974, the respondents applied for a decision on their application, dated 18-7-1974 to enable them to make up the deficiency in the court-fee. Still no decision was given and when the matter ultimately came up on 11-12-1982, the trial Court dismissed the application and consequently rejected the plaint under Order VII, rule 112, C . P. C . On appeal the order was reversed and the case was remanded for passing a fresh order giving the to the respondents to make up the deficiency.
The petitioners challenged this order in appeal before the High Court but the same was dismissed in limine. The view taken was that the respondents, as rightly found by the first appellate Court, had not been negligent nor was their failure to make the deficiency contumacious.
2. After hearing learned counsel we find no reason to interfere with the order of High Court, for, the same is in accord with the rule laid down by this Court in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan PLD 1984 SC 289. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. 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.