MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another vs Mst. BHOORI
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a suit for pre-emption, challenging the dismissal of the appellants' Regular Second Appeal by the High Court. The core legal question examined was whether the respondent plaintiff's pre-emption suit was liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation due to a delay in supplying a deficiency in court-fee pointed out by the trial Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the case is squarely covered by the precedent in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan (PLD 1984 Supreme Court 289). The Court laid down the principle that a plaintiff is entitled as of right to the grant of time in the first instance to make up a deficiency in court-fee, and it is the duty of the trial Court to specify the exact amount to be paid after proper determination, provided the plaintiff's conduct is not contumacious.
- Whether a pre-emption suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation if a deficiency in court-fee is not supplied within the limitation period?
- Is a plaintiff entitled as of right to the grant of time in the first instance to make good a deficiency in court-fee?
- Whose duty is it to specify the exact amount of court-fee to be paid after a determination of deficiency?
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---This appeal by leave of the Court filed by the defendants' side in a suit for pre-emption is directed against the dismissal by the High Court of their Regular Second Appeal. Leave to appeal was granted to examine: whether, the respondent/plaintiff's suit was not liable to be dismissed on ground of limitation as the deficiency in court-fee pointed out in the trial Court was not supplied within the period of limitation.
2. ' After hearing the learned counsel we find that this case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another (PLD 1984 Supreme Court 289) which goes against the appellants' side. Learned counsel remained unable to satisfy us that the respondent/plaintiff as held in the said case of Siddique Khan was not entitled as of right to grant of time in the first instance; and secondly, that despite the report of the Commission it was not the duty of the trial Court to specify exact amount which was to be paid as court-fee, and that too on the grant of time after the said determination of the court-fee. Indeed in the circumstances of this case we are satisfied that the conduct of the respondent/plaintiff (female) was not in any way contumacious. Looked at from whatever angle there is no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 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.
Cited by 1 case
- SIKANDAR KHAN and 3 others vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another 2003 PLD Lahore 398