SAIMA BATOOL vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE S — 2026 PLD 320 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SAIMA BATOOL VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE S.12---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Suit for specific performance---Rejection of plaint due to non-submission of court fee and balance consideration---Partial balance sale consideration deposited pursuant to Court's direction---Application for refund declined on ground that permission to deposit not reflected in order sheet---Effect---Litigant not to suffer for omission or mistake of Court---Retention of amount by State amounting to unjust enrichment---Return of deposited amount in circumstances---Scope---Brief facts of the matter were that the petitioner instituted asuit for specific performance against the private respondent on the basis of an agreement-cum-allotment concerning a commercial plaza, with a total sale consideration of Rs.156,000,000/-, pursuant to which she paid the booking amount after balloting; during pendency of the suit, the Trial Court directed submission of court fee and deposit of the remaining consideration; the petitioner deposited Rs.22,910,000/- in the Treasury; subsequently, the plaint was rejected under O.VII R.11, C.P.C. for non-submission of court fee and balance consideration, and the order attained finality; the petitioner thereafter sought refund of the deposited amount; her application was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that no order permitting such deposit existed on the record, and a revision petition was also dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, leading to the filing of the present constitutional petition---Held: Treasury office admitted in the report submitted before the High Court that the said amount was deposited, therefore, if the factum of allowing the application of the petitioner/plaintiff to deposit balance sale consideration had not been recorded in the order sheet of the Trial Court, said mistake could not be attributed to the petitioner---Suit of the petitioner was dismissed on 24.03.2022 and ever since then her valuable money was being retained and not being returned to her and in the process, not only her money had depreciated over the period coupled with her deprivation form being able to invest the same and/or use the same as per her fundamental right---It was an admitted feature of the case that the challan was issued against which the payment was made and said payment was available in the Treasury and not needed for any other purpose---State had no right over the amount deposited by the petitioner---If the Trial Court after allowing the application of the petitioner/plaintiff to deposit the amount did not record the same in the order sheet, the same was inaction on part of the Court, which could not be made basis of harm to the petitioner---Impugned order was set aside and application of the petitioner to seek refund of the amount ofRs.22,910,000/- was accepted and the Trial Court was directed to procced in the matter enabling the petitioner to seek refund---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

SAIMA BATOOL vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE S — 2026 PLD 320 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD