ABDUL AZIZ vs Malik LAL KHAN and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside a trial court's order rejecting a plaint for failure to pay court-fee. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion to enlarge the time for the respondents to amend their plaint and pay the requisite court-fee, given the respondents' prior conduct and the procedural history of the litigation. The Supreme Court observed that the respondents' delay was not contumacious, as they had been pursuing legal remedies through revision petitions where stay orders were previously granted. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the circumstances, including the existence of a parallel suit filed by the petitioner regarding the same property, justified the enlargement of time for the respondents to rectify the deficiency. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's exercise of discretion was appropriate and refused to interfere with the impugned judgment, dismissing the petition for lack of merit.
- Can a court enlarge the time for making up a deficiency in court-fee if the delay is not found to be contumacious?
- Does the pendency of a parallel suit regarding the same property constitute a valid ground for allowing an amendment to a plaint and payment of deficient court-fee?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against judgment of a Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 16-10-2001 through which regular first appeal filed by the respondents against order of the trial Court of rejection of plaint of their suit has been accepted and they have been granted 15 days' time to amend the plaint and make up deficiency in the court-fee.
2. We have heard learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and found that the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court that the conduct of the respondents was not contumacious in making up deficiency in the court-fee, as order passed by the trial Court for making up deficiency in the court-fee was challenged in revision petition before District Court, in which stay order was passed. After return of the revision petition, it was presented before the High Court and the High Court too passed a stay order in the first round of litigation. However, revision petition was dismissed as time-barred on 22-2-2000.
3. The petitioner-defendant made an application on 10-6-2000 before the Trial Court seeking rejection of the plaint as the respondents, despite rejection of their revision petition by the High Court did not make up deficiency in the court-fee. Respondents also made an application on 19-6- 2000 for enlargement of time to file amended plaint and making up deficiency in the court-fee, which was rejected and that of the petitioner for rejection of the plaint was accepted through order, dated 27-6-2000. This order was challenged before the High Court in regular first appeal, which has been accepted through judgment, dated 16-10-2001 against which leave is sought.
4. In the facts and circumstances of this case and particularly in view of the fact that petitioner had also filed a suit for declaration of his rights in the property in dispute, it was rightly held by the High Court that it was a fit case for enlargement of time to file amended plaint and A making up deficiency of court-fee. No ground is made out for interference in the impugned judgment.
Resultantly, this petition being without any merits is hereby dismissed and leave refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- CH. JAVED IQBAL vs Mst. ZAINAB BIBI WIDOW and 8 others 2005 PLJ Lahore 470
- Ch. JAVED IQBAL vs Mst. ZAINAB BIBI and 8 others 2005 CLC 197