MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and others vs GHULAM RASOOL and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a regular second appeal by the Lahore High Court in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question is whether a decree in a pre-emption suit can be validly passed after the cut-off date established by the Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287). The trial court had initially rejected the plaint due to a delay in the payment of court fees, but the Additional District Judge subsequently set aside this order and decreed the suit in favour of the pre-emptors. The petitioners challenged this, arguing that under the principles laid down in Sardar Ali, no new decree could be passed in favour of pre-emptors after 31-7-1986. The Supreme Court, finding merit in the petitioners' contention regarding the applicability of the Sardar Ali precedent, granted leave to appeal, converted the petition into an appeal, and ordered the matter to be heard on the existing record.
- Can a decree in a pre-emption suit be passed after 31-7-1986 in light of the judgment in Sardar Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287)?
- Does the failure to pay court fees within the prescribed time justify the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners in a pre-emption matter, against the dismissal of their regular second appeal by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, vide impugned judgment.
2. ' The sale of the disputed property was made on 13-2-1979 on which was pre-empted by the respondents on the plea that they had already deposited a sum of Rs, 10,725 as cost of the court- fee and shall provide the same when obtained from the Treasury. The plaintiffs/respondents obtained the stamp on 14-2-1980 and filed it on 16-2-1980. On the objection of defendants/petitioners that failure to pay the court-fee was contumacious the learned trial Judge vide his order dated 16-12-1984 rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Appeal of the respondents before the Addl. District Judge succeeded who vide his order dated 18-3-1987 set aside the order and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the respondents on payment of Rs,200,000. The petitioners' Regular Second Appeal against the judgment of the Addl. District Judge was dismissed in liminc vide judgment dated 19-4-1987.
3. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
4. The petitioners' learned counsel contended that the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents by the Additional District Judge on 18-3-1987 which was affirmed by the learned High Court on 19-4-1987 but under the law declared by this Court in "Sardar Ali's case reported in PLD 1988 SC 287" no new decree could be passed after 31-7-1986 in favour of the pre- emptors and thus decrees passed thereafter are liable to be set aside.
5. ' After considering the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we think that he has been able to make out a case for further examination of this Court. We, therefore, convert this petition into appeal which is to be prepared and heard on the present record. The parties however, are permitted to file additional necessary documents, if any. Security is Rs,5,000.