2012 PLP 1334 (MLD)
FAREED ALAM — Appellant Versus SHIRAZ AFZAL MALIK — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 1334 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FAREED ALAM — Appellant Versus SHIRAZ AFZAL MALIK — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Court Fees Act (VII of 1870) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1334 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Court Fees Act (VII of 1870) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 1334 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 1334 (MLD) (FAREED ALAM — Appellant Versus SHIRAZ AFZAL MALIK — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13
Refund of Court Fee, application for
Respondent in the appeal was never served in the appeal filed by the applicant nor any counsel was engaged by him, and no restraining order was passed by the court in favour of the applicant/appellant
Matter had been compromised between the parties pursuant to which the applicant/appellant withdrew the appeal at the initial stage
Appellant/applicant, in circumstances, was entitled to refund of the court fee, irrespective of the fact whether the provisions of S.13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 were attracted or not
Application was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.
Through listed application filed under section 13 of Court-Fee Act read with Articles 2-A and 37(D) of Constitution of Pakistan and section 151, C.P.C. the appellant has prayed for return of full amount of Court Fee viz. Rs.15,000 paid by the appellant while filing instant appeal. Notices were issued to the respondent however despite repeated notices no one shown appearance. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that instant appeal was admitted to regular hearing on 26-3-2010 by this Court whereafter on 13-5-2010 the same was withdrawn by the appellant in view of the compromise reached between the parties. Learned counsel has filed copy of the order dated 24-4-2010 passed on compromise application by the learned IInd Additional District Judge Mirpurkhas in Summary Suit No. 06/09, Execution Application No.05/09. In support of his contention learned Counsel has placed reliance on the following cases:-- (1) 2004 CLC 430 (BASIT RASOOL QADIR and others v. FIRST GENERAL LEASING MODEL) (2) 2008 CLC 464 (MUHAMMAD TAHIR v. KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY through Chief Controller of Buildings.) (3) 2011 CLC 314 (LIAQUAT HUSSAIN v. SAUDI AIR LINE, through Country Manger. It appears that respondent was never served in the instant case nor any counsel was engaged by him, whereas no restraining order was passed by this Court in favour of the appellant. The matter has been compromised between the parties pursuant to which the appellant withdrew instant appeal at initial stage. Accordingly, in view of facts and the ratio of case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant there seems no impediment in the grant of instant application. I am of the view the appellant is entitled to refund of the Court Fee, irrespective of the fact, whether the provisions of S.13 of the Court Fee are attracted or not. Resultantly, instant application is allowed. Office is directed to issue certificate for refund of Court Fee in favour of the appellant. K.M.Z./F-9/K Appeal accepted.