MUHAMMAD BASHIR and another vs Syed ALTAF HUSSAIN SHAH through his
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the vendees against the dismissal of their Regular First Appeal by the High Court, which had upheld a pre-emption decree in favour of the respondents. The core legal questions concern whether an alleged deficiency in court-fee warrants the rejection of a plaint under the principles established in Siddique Khan's case, and whether the acceptance of a security bond without a prior order for the deposit of Zar-e-Panjum or a specific direction to submit such a bond justifies non-suiting the plaintiffs under subsection (4) of section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, along with the issue of security adequacy. The Supreme Court held that since the exact amount of court-fee deficiency was not determined, there was no default or contumacious act, and the High Court correctly relied on Siddique Khan. Furthermore, in the absence of a specific direction by the court for deposit or furnishing of security, no contravention of law occurred to attract penalties under section 22(4). The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
- Whether the deficiency in court-fee can be made a ground for rejection of plaint when the exact amount of deficiency has not been determined?
- Whether the acceptance of a security bond without any order of deposit of Zar-e-Panjum or direction for submission can be made a ground for non-suiting the plaintiffs under subsection (4) of section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
- Does the absence of a specific direction by the court for deposit or furnishing of security prevent the application of penalties under section 22(4) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
- Section 22(1), Punjab Pre-emption Act
- Section 22(4), Punjab Pre-emption Act
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by Vendees' side; against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Regular First Appeal against a pre-emption decree in favour of the respondents' side.
2. ' Only two questions now remain to be resolved. One. Whether the so-called deficiency in court-fee on the asking of the petitioners be made a ground for rejection of plaint; and whether the reliance of the High Court on the case of Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another (PLD 1984 SC 289) was justified; (2) whether, the acceptance by the trial Court of security bond without any order of deposit of the Zar-e-Panjum and/or without any direction for submission of such a bond could be made a ground for non-suiting the plaintiffs' side under subsection (4) of section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. Learned counsel in this behalf also tried to argue that the security had become insufficient.
3. After some arguments the learned counsel had to admit that in the facts and circumstances of this case the exact amount of deficiency in court-fee not having been determined there was no case of default in this behalf nor it could be treated as a contumacious act. Thus, the High Court rightly rejected the petitioners' plea in this behalf by invoking the view laid down it the case of Siddique Khan.
4. ' On the second question also the learned Judge in the High Court gave cogent reasons not to non- suit the plaintiffs under section 22(4) obviously because notwithstanding the assumed omission by the Court to pass proper orders under section 22(1) the intent and purpose of the law stood satisfied by furnishing of the security. Otherwise too in the circumstances of this case if there was no direction for deposit nor for furnishing of the security, no occasion would arise for contravention of such direction so as to be visited by the penalty under section 22 (4). Regarding the reduction in the value of the security suffice it to observe that the Court "not having specified any amount" there was no contravention by the plaintiffs' side. In any case the question of adequacy of the security was for the trial Court and on this ground alone the impugned judgment could not be set aside.
5. ' In the light of the foregoing discussion there is no force in this petition, leave to appeal therefore is refused.
Cited by 3 cases
- RAZA TAUFEEQ Versus HAMMAD HUSSAIN 2017 CLCN 88
- MUBARAK AHMAD and 2 others vs HASSAN MUHAMMAD through Legal Heirs 2001 SCMR 1868
- MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN Versus REHMAT ALI 1993 PLD 836