GHULAM HUSSAIN And Others vs GHULAM HAIDER KHAN And Other
This matter originated from two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' (vendees/defendants) revisions concerning the rejection of a plaint. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the respondents' plaint should have been rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to an alleged deficiency in the court-fee paid, specifically regarding the statement of net profits. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that even if the correct statement of net profits had been produced, the court-fee paid would have remained proper. The Court dismissed the petitioners' argument regarding the reliance on certain documents as hyper-technical and concluded that no contravention of law had occurred that would warrant the rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11. Relying on the precedent established in Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan, the Court found no justification for interference and refused leave to appeal, thereby affirming the lower court's dismissal of the revisions.
- Does a failure to produce a statement of net profits automatically necessitate the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a court refuse to reject a plaint if the court-fee paid would have been sufficient regardless of the statement of net profits?
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions from judgment, dated 9-12-1985 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners' (vendees/defendants) 'revisions arising out of respondents' suits, were dismissed.
2. The short point involved was of court-fee. The petitioners had objected to the levy of the court-fee before the trial Court on the basis that proper statement of net profits had not been produced.
3. Their objection was over ruled and the respondents' plaint was not rejected under Order VII, Rule 11.
4. The petitioners having failed in the appellate and revisional Court have Dow sought leave to appeal.
5. The High Court has noted that even if the correct statement of net profits would have been produced the court-fee paid would have been proper. The objection of the learned counsel that the High Court should not have relied upon certain document, is hyper technical in the circumstances of this case. Be that as it may no such contravention of law had been committed by the respondents so as to incur a liability under Order VII, Rule 11. The case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan PLD 1984 SC 157.
6. No justification has been made out for interference. Leave to appeal accordingly, is 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.