KHUDA BAKHSH vs MUHAMMAD YAQUB
This civil appeal arises from a suit for possession of land based on a superior right of pre-emption. The trial court initially dismissed the suit primarily due to a deficiency in the payment of court-fee. Although the appellate court reversed this finding, the High Court subsequently allowed a revision petition against that reversal, holding that the appellant was negligent and contumacious in filing an appeal with deficient court-fee. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the correctness of the High Court's judgment in light of the precedent established in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan (PLD 1984 SC 289). Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court's judgment could not be sustained in view of the cited authority. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the High Court for a rehearing of the revision petition on its merits. The judgment reaffirms the necessity of adhering to established Supreme Court guidelines regarding the treatment of deficient court-fee matters in litigation.
- Can a suit or appeal be dismissed solely on the ground of deficient court-fee without following the procedural requirements established in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan?
- Is a finding of negligence and contumacy regarding court-fee payment sufficient to dismiss an appeal without further opportunity to rectify the deficiency?
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.-This is an appeal by leave of this Court against the order, dated 13-11- 1982 of I learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court.
2. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for possession of land measuring 6 marlas described in the heading of the plaint on the basis of his superior right of pre-emption as co-sharer as well as owner in the land in the Mau7a. The suit was contested on various grounds which resulted in the framing of a number of issues. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant mainly on the ground of deficiency in the payment of the court---fee.
This finding was upset by the Additional District Judge-I, Mianwali on the appeal filed by the appellant vide judgment, dated 14-7-1980. The respondent then challenged the findings of the appellate Court through a revision in the High Court which was allowed through the impugned judgment and it was held therein that the appellant was negligent and contumacious in filing an "incompetent appeal with deficient court-fee".
3. Leave has been granted to consider the correctness of the judgment of the learned High Court in view of the decision of this Court in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan PLD 1984 SC 289.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and are of the view that in view of the decision of this Court in the above-cited case, the judgment of the learned Judge in his chambers, cannot be sustained. The appeal is therefore allowed and the case is remanded to the High Court to re-hear the revision petition on merits. There is however no order as to costs.