Pakistan Case Law
1986 SCMR 333

MUHAMMAD IQBAL And Others vs ABDUL HAMID

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1986 SCMR 333
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 4 of 1981
Date1986-10-26
Judge(s)Mian Burhanuddin Khan, Aslam Riaz Hussain
ResultLeave granted
Summary

This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal filed by the vendees, Muhammad Iqbal and others, challenging the dismissal of their Regular First Appeal (R.F.A.) in a pre-emption suit initiated by the respondent, Abdul Hamid. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns the procedural implications of a plaintiff deliberately fixing a nominal court fee in a pre-emption suit and whether, under such circumstances, the trial court or appellate court is justified in allowing the plaintiff to subsequently rectify the deficiency in the court fee. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the petitioners' counsel and the respondent's representative, determined that the petition raised substantial questions of law worthy of further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to specifically consider the effect of the deliberate under-valuation of the court fee and the propriety of permitting the deficiency to be made up. The Court ordered the provision of security in the amount of Rs. 2,000 and allowed the parties to file additional documents for the final hearing on the same record.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does the deliberate fixing of a nominal court fee in a pre-emption suit preclude the plaintiff from later making up the deficiency?
  • Under what circumstances should a court allow a plaintiff to rectify a deficiency in court fees in a pre-emption case?
pre-emptioncourt feeleave to appealdeficiency in court feecivil procedure

ORDER

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Muhammad Iqbal etc. Vendees have filed the present petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of their R.F.A. In a pre-emption case filed by Abdul Mood respondent.

2. We have heard the petitioners' counsel and the Advocate-on-Record for the respondent. We feel that this is a fit case for grant of leave to consider the effect of deliberately fixing a nominal court- fee by the plaintiff/respondent and to consider whether, in the circumstances of this case, he should have been allowed to make up the deficiency.

Security in the sum of Rs.,2,000.

To be heard on the same record with permission to file additional documents.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.