P L D 2013 Lahore 486 (PLP)
NAWAB ALI through Legal Heirs — Petitioner Versus Soofi NAWAB DIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2013 Lahore 486 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NAWAB ALI through Legal Heirs — Petitioner Versus Soofi NAWAB DIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2013 Lahore 486 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2013 Lahore 486 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2013 Lahore 486 (PLP) (NAWAB ALI through Legal Heirs — Petitioner Versus Soofi NAWAB DIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Noor Muhammad Awan for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Vol. I, Chap. 16, Part B, R.15
Scope
Several appellants with "joint" interest
Single cause of action
Plea that where co-owners, co-claimants or co-appellants were seeking a relief under one cause of action then the court fee chargeable was only one
Prayer in the present case by separate sets of plaintiffs in the suit sought relief regarding different mutations, which did not demonstrate a single cause of action
Objection was sustained accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Objection Case. UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
Learned counsel has read from the High Court Rules and Orders Volume-I, Chapter 16-B, Rule 15 wherein it is provided that where interest of several appellants is joint then not more than one court fee shall be allowed unless the Court otherwise orders. On the meaning of the word "joint", the learned counsel submits that it refers to a joint cause of action which translates to the claim of a joint right for the relief prayed. Accordingly, where co-owners, co-claimants or co-appellants are seeking a relief under one cause of action then the court fee chargeable is one only. A test of the said point can be that where relief granted to one of the claimants or appellants would in law be equally available to the other claimants or appellants is an indication that the right they are claiming is joint.
2. The refinement added by the said argument of the learned counsel is appreciated. The order of the Court dated 5-9-2011 shall be interpreted in the light of the said argument.
3. The facts of the case have been perused. The prayer by separate sets of plaintiffs in the suit seeks relief regarding different mutations which does not demonstrate a single cause of action.
4. Objection sustained. MWA/N-24/L Order accordingly.