MANZOOR And Others vs SARDAR KHAN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from a pre-emption suit. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed a suit for pre-emption, but the plaint initially lacked the correct court-fee. The trial court granted permission to make up the deficiency, and the plaintiff complied within the court-fixed timeframe, although this date fell after the statutory limitation period for filing the suit. The trial court decreed the suit, but the Additional District Judge set aside the decree on appeal, ruling that the deficiency in court-fee was not rectified within the limitation period. The High Court dismissed the petitioners' second appeal in limine. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the petitioners' contention that the lower courts' findings conflicted with the rule established in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan (PLD 1984 SC 289). The core legal question is whether a court-permitted extension for making up a court-fee deficiency in a pre-emption suit can extend beyond the limitation period without invalidating the suit. The Supreme Court found the contention regarding the conflict with established precedent worthy of consideration.
- Can a court allow a plaintiff to make up a deficiency in court-fee after the expiry of the limitation period for a pre-emption suit?
- Does the rectification of a court-fee deficiency within a court-fixed timeframe validate a plaint even if the timeframe exceeds the original limitation period?
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J--Rehman, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed a suit for pre- emption. The plaint did not bear the correct amount of court-fee. The trial Court permitted him to make up the deficiency. The date prescribed by the trial Court fell beyond the period of limitation provided for suits for pre-emption. He made up the deficiency within the time fixed by the Court.
The suit was later decreed. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge. He accepted the appeal and set-aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court solely on the ground that Rehmat had not made up the deficiency in the court-fee within the period of limitation prescribed for suits for pre-emption. The petitioners preferred a second appeal in the High Court which was dismissed in limine.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the view taken by the High Court and the Additional District Judge is in conflict with the rule laid down by this Court in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan PLD 1984 SC 289. This contention needs consideration. Leave to appeal is granted to the petitioners. Security in the sum of Rs.2,500. The appeal may be prepared for hearing on the present record. 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.