1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--After contest but ultimately conceding the plaintiff pre-emptor were called upon to make up the deficiency in court-fee by 9th of April, 1976. The court-fee stamp was purchased within the but filed to days later. The objection of the petitioner for rejection of plaint was rejected by the trial Court on 21-7-1976. The revision petition was dismissed by the High Court observing that there is only a delay of to days in the filing. It held that the exercise of discretion by the trial Court was proper and did not require interference.
2. Mr. Riaz Anwar the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the conduct of the plaintiff- respondents examined in the context of the contest between the parties clearly appeared to be contumacious in the extreme. They had forfeited any claim to indulgence or exercise of discretion.
3. They should have been penalised for it.
4. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan and others PLD 1984 SC 157 and Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan PLD 1984 SC 289 and the rationale underlying, we consider this not to be a fit case for any further examination as a discretion vested in the Court has been exercised and found not to be improperly exercised. There is no question of further going into the merits of it. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. 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.