HASHMAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition challenging a revisional order regarding the payment of court fees in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted within its discretion in granting an extension of time for the plaintiff to make up a deficiency in court fees, particularly when the suit was filed without any initial court fee payment and near the expiry of the limitation period. The Supreme Court, relying on established precedents regarding the discretionary power of courts to grant extensions for court fee deficiencies, held that the trial court and the revisional court had passed legal and appropriate orders. The High Court was correct in refusing to interfere with these orders under its constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle affirmed is that courts possess the discretion to allow the making up of court fee deficiencies, and such procedural exercises of discretion, when legally sound, are not subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction.
- Can a court grant an extension of time for the payment of court fees in a pre-emption suit?
- Is a high court justified in refusing to interfere with a trial court's procedural order regarding court fee deficiency under its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the filing of a suit on the last day of limitation without initial court fee payment automatically disentitle a plaintiff from seeking an extension to make up the deficiency?
- Section 148, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 149, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The defendant vendee seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 25th of June, 1983 whereby a constitutional petition filed by him challenging the revisional order of the Additional District Judge, dated 26-7-1981, was dismissed.
2. The plaintiff /pre-emptors instituted a civil suit pre-empting the sale in favour of the petitioner paying no court-fee at all and claiming exemption the valuation being less than Rs. 25,000. At the same time they undertook to make up the deficiency after getting the net profits worked out. An extension was granted for the purpose and the court-fee was paid within the extended date. The petitioner made a grievance of it in revision that the extension had been granted without notice to him and without hearing him. A remand followed. Issues were framed whether an extension for the purpose could justifiably be granted and whether the deficiency had been made up. The Civil Judge upheld the extension and also found that in excess of the court-fee due had been paid by the extended date. A revision petition was filed and the same failed. An attempt was made to get the orders interfered with by resort to the constitutional jurisdiction but it was unsuccessful.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred us to the conduct of the plaintiff /respondent in particular in making an application under section 476, Cr. P.C. Against him in making a false claim of having filed an application under section 148/149, C.P.C., when he had not filed any, and finally in seeking reconstruction of the record on the assumption that the petitioner had been instrumental in removing from record certain documents. Apart from this, it is contended that the suit was filed on 26-5-1980 registered on 27-5-1980 and while directing service on the petitioner for 29-5-1980 the plaintiff was also directed to get the statement of net profits prepared and to make up the deficiency. The deficiency was indeed made up on 29-6-1980. Nevertheless, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the conduct of the petitioner in paying no Court fee at all, in filing the suit on the last day of limitation and in making no effort to get the statement of net profits prepared, all indicated that he was not entitled to any concession or indulgence in this behalf.
4. After examining the decisions of this Court on the subject, namely, Siddique Khan v. Abdul Skakur Khan PLD 1984 SC 289, and Gulzar Hussain v. Abdul Rehman and others 1985 SCMR 301, we find that legal and appropriate orders have been passed by the trial Court and the revisional Court and the High Court justifiably did not interfere with such orders while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- IBRAHIM SAID vs ZAHID SHAH 2003 CLC 1658
- PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN vs MESSRS TRIBAL FRIENDS COMPANY, LORALAI 1986 PLD Quetta 321