NOORA And Others vs Mst. MATLOOB BIBI
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a revision application against a decree for pre-emption of land. The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to deposit the required Zar-e-Saman within the stipulated timeframe, thereby rendering the suit liable to dismissal. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the plaint should have been rejected due to a deficiency in court fees. The Supreme Court observed that the argument regarding the failure to deposit Zar-e-Saman was a fresh plea not raised before the High Court. Regarding the court fee issue, the Court noted that the trial court had not issued a specific order directing the payment of additional court fees. Relying on the precedent established in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan, the Court held that the plaint could not be rejected in the absence of such an order. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming that new pleas cannot be introduced at the appellate stage and that the rejection of a plaint for deficient court fees requires a prior judicial order.
- Can a petitioner raise a fresh plea for the first time before the Supreme Court that was not argued before the High Court?
- Can a plaint be rejected for deficient court fees without a prior order from the trial court directing the payment of such fees?
- Does a failure to deposit Zar-e-Saman within the stipulated time automatically result in the dismissal of a pre-emption suit?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 17-7-1984 dismissing a revision application filed by petitioner against the judgment of District Judge, Sargodha dated 27-7-1984. By that judgment learned District Judge dismissed petitioner's appeal and thereby confirmed the judgment of Civil Judge, Bhalwal dated 10-12-1980 whereby a suit for pre-emption of land filed by respondent was decreed on payment of Rs.20,000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree in respondent's favour was passed with the stipulation that he will make the payment of Zar-e-Saman Rs.20,000, till 31-1-1981, after deducting Zar-e-Punjam, if any, deposited by him, and in case he failed to do so, the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Since respondent did not deposit the Zar-e-Saman within the stipulated the, the suit ought to have been treated as having been dismissed.
3. This plea was not raised before the High Court, and in fact the only plea that was urged by the learned counsel appearing before the High Court in support of the revision application was that despite the order of the learned trial Court the respondent had not made up the deficiency in court-fee paid on the plaint and, therefore, the plaint merited rejection. This plea was rejected for the following reasons: "The learned counsel conceded that the learned trial Court had not passed any order directing the respondent to pay any specific amount of court-fee. In these circumstances, in view of the rule laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan PLD 1984 SC 289, the plaint could not have been rejected. There being no dispute regarding superiority of the pre- emptive right of the respondent and sale consideration, this petition is without any force and is consequently dismissed in limine."
4. The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a totally fresh plea before this Court and the other submission made by learned counsel in support of this petition was in fact the only plea urged before the High Court which has been rightly rejected on the principles laid down by this Court in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan PLD 1984 SC 289.
5. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition and it is dismissed