ZULFIQAR ALI and others vs Mst. SAJIDA BEGUM
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court upholding the decision of the District Judge, which decreed the respondent's suit for pre-emption. The core legal question was whether a suit could be dismissed solely on the ground of an insufficiently stamped plaint where the deficient court-fee was subsequently made up during the trial. The Supreme Court held that the trial court was bound to determine the exact amount of court-fee and afford reasonable time to the plaintiff to make up any deficiency, and since the deficient court-fee was indeed paid during the trial, no illegality was committed by the lower appellate court. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused, reinforcing the principle that procedural deficiencies regarding court-fees remedied during trial do not warrant the dismissal of a suit.
- Whether a suit can be dismissed on the ground of an insufficiently stamped plaint if the deficiency is made up during the trial?
- Is the trial court bound to determine the exact amount of court-fee and afford reasonable time to the plaintiff to make up any deficiency?
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 17-10-1992.
2, The facts, in brief, are that the respondent brought a suit for preemption against the petitioners.
The suit was contested and issues were framed. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaint was insufficiently stamped. On the other issues the superior right of the respondent was accepted. The appeal filed by the respondent was accepted by the District Judge, Jhang. The second appeal filed against the judgment of the learned District Judge was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Only one point was agitated before the High Court that, as the plaint was insufficiently stamped, the suit was properly dismissed. The learned Judge in Chambers, on the basis of the cases reported as Rachappa Subrao Judhey Desai v. Shidappa Venkatrao Jadhey Desai (AIR 1918 PC 188) and Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan (PLD 1984 SC 289) rejected the contention of the petitioners. The case on merits was not challenged before the High Court. The trial Court decided the case on merits in favour of the pre-emptor. The learned District Judge did not concur with the finding of the trial Court on the issue of court-fee and passed a decree for an amount of Rs,66,000. It is an admitted fact that the deficient court-fee was paid during the trial of the suit. The trial Court had accepted the deficient court-fee and the requisite stamps were placed on record. As per decision of this Court in Siddique Khan's case the trial Court was bound to determine the exact amount of the court-fee and afford reasonable time to the plaintiff to make up the deficiency. This has not been done. After final calculation the plaintiff had paid the proper court-fee. No illegality has been committed by the Courts below.
3. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and the leave prayed for is refused.