1984 PLP 178 (SCMR)
Mst. SHAHIDA BEGUM AND OTHERS — Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASUL-Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 178 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. SHAHIDA BEGUM AND OTHERS — Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASUL-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 178 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 178 (SCMR)?
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: 1984 PLP 178 (SCMR) (Mst. SHAHIDA BEGUM AND OTHERS — Petitioners Versus GHULAM RASUL-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Riaz A. Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court and Karam Elahi Bhatti Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 26th October, 1983.
- S. Riaz A. Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court and Karam Elahi Bhatti Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 15-6-1983 passed in R. S. A. No. 77 of 1983). -- Art. 185(3)-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 35-A-Punjab Govern ment Notification No. 353-80/248-ST-I, dated 4-2-1980-Appeal Undervaluation of appeal for purposes of court-fees-Dismissal of such appeal by lower appellate Court-High Court observing that order of lower appellate Court based on question of applicability of Notification No. 353-80/248-ST-I, dated 4-2-1980 and remanding case to be heard alongwith other cases on same subject already remanded, held, unexceptionable-Petition dismissed. Abdul Ghafoor v. Muhammad Rafaqat P L D 1983 Lah. 383 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑This petition is directed against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 15‑6‑1983 passed in R. S. A: No. 77 of 1983.
2. Present petition relates to the matter of court‑fee payable on the R. S. A. accepted by the impugned order. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court‑fee paid on the appeal was undervalue i.e. instead of court‑fee on Rs. 60,000 court‑fee was affixed at a value of Rs. 18,000 and for this reason alone the R. S. A. should have been dismissed by the learned High Court Judge. We have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel and find that the learned Judge of the High Court considered that the order passed by the learned. Additional District Judge, Attock was based on the question as regards the applicability of the Punjab Government's Notification, dated 4‑2‑1980 which the learned Additional District Judge felt was not applicable and dismissed a large A number of appeals including the appeal out of which the present petition arises without going into other intrinsic objections such as court‑fee payable on each appeal and the judgment of the learned Additional District. Judge was a consolidated judgment relating to 46 appeals, which was set aside by the same High Court in C. R. 31/1983. Re : Abdul Ghafoor v. Muhammad Rafaqat (P L D 1983 Lah. 383), decided by the Rawalpindi Bench on 27‑4‑1983. In these Circumstances it was held by the learned High Court Judge that the appeal in question shall also be remanded to be decided alongwith other matters regarding court‑fee on merits. Hence, the impugned order is unexceptionable and this petition is, accordingly, dismissed. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.