| Case ID |
5c935d6b-d542-4d1d-b726-5ed9368afb8b |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Appeal No.195 of 1978 |
| Decision Date |
Aug 01, 1988 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal with costs, rejecting the contention that the appeal was improper due to deficiency in court fees. The Court upheld the trial court's decision that the sale price of Rs.22,000 was fixed in good faith, thereby affirming the appellant's obligation to deposit the purchase price as decreed. |
| Summary |
In Civil Appeal No.195 of 1978, the Supreme Court of Pakistan delivered a pivotal decision on August 1, 1988, addressing critical aspects of the Court Fees Act (VII of 1870) and the Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913). The case revolved around a dispute concerning the actual consideration of a registered sale-deed dated October 26, 1959, where the appellants purchased approximately 27 Kanals of land in Multan for Rs.22,000. The pre-emptor, Khurshid Akbar Khan, contested this amount, asserting that the true consideration should have been Rs.10,000. Despite the pre-emption suit being decreed and the trial court affirming the Rs.22,000 as a good faith determination, the pre-emptor filed an appeal seeking a reduction.
The core legal issue centered on the adequacy of court fees and the legitimacy of the appellate process when deficiencies in court fee payments were present. The appellant's memorandum of appeal was initially found deficient in court fees, yet the Appellate Court proceeded to hear the case on its merits, ultimately dismissing the appeal and enforcing the payment of the full purchase price. The Supreme Court reinforced this stance by citing precedents such as Firm Nihal Chand Atma Ram v. Sardari Mal and Amir Shah Muhammad v. Syed Shah Muhammad, emphasizing that proper court fee procedures do not undermine the substantive justice of a case when the primary claims are appropriately substantiated.
Represented by distinguished lawyers Khalilur Rahman and Mahmood A. Qureshi, the appellants contested the procedural deficiencies cited by the respondents, represented by Khalid Farooq Qureshi and Ch. Akhtar Ali. The Supreme Court's decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the integrity of contractual agreements made in good faith, as well as ensuring that procedural technicalities do not overshadow substantive legal rights and obligations. This judgment serves as a significant reference for future cases involving pre-emption rights, court fee protocols, and the balance between procedural compliance and substantive justice within Pakistan's legal framework. The case highlights the Supreme Court's authoritative role in interpreting and enforcing legislative provisions, ensuring that equitable outcomes are achieved even amidst procedural challenges. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
SAAD SAOOD JAN,
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH,
USMAN ALI SHAH
|
| Lawyers |
Khalilur Rahman,
Mahmood A. Qureshi,
Khalid Farooq Qureshi,
Ch. Akhtar Ali
|
| Petitioners |
AHMAD BAKHSH and others
|
| Respondents |
KHURSHID AKBAR KHAN and others
|
| Citations |
1988 SLD 324,
1988 PLD 707
|
| Other Citations |
Firm Nihal Chand Atma Ram v. Sardari Mal A I R 1926 Leh. 558,
Amir Shah Muhammad v. Syed Shah Muhammad A I R 1931 Leh. 237
|
| Laws Involved |
Court Fees Act (VII of 1870),
Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)
|
| Sections |
S. 7, para. (vi),
S.21
|