2002 PLP 800 (MLD)

The contention of the applicant is that the said order be reviewed on the ground that no court‑fee is required to be paid on the basis of value of subject‑matter in view of sub clauses (v) and (vi) of section 7 of Court Fees Act. It is submitted that for the purpose of possession of land in pre‑emption cases, the court‑fee is to be calculated on the basis of Land Revenue and the Court has erroneously determined the court‑fee on the basis of value of subject‑matter. The reliance is placed upon the case of Illahi Bakhsh and others v. Mst. Bilquees Begum PLD 1985 SC

393. Section 7 clause (v) of Court Fees Act reads as under:‑‑ "(v) For possession of lands, houses and gardens: In suits for the, possession of land, houses and gardens".' `"According to the value of the subject‑matter: and such value shall be deemed to be:‑‑." (a) Where the subject‑matter in land and, where net profits have arisen from such land during the year next before date of presenting the plaint‑‑‑ (b) Where the subject‑matter is land and where no such profits have arisen therefrom market value of such land; (c) Where the subject‑matter is a house or garden according to the market value of the house or garden." Section 1‑A of Court Fees Act empowers the Provincial Government to fix charges in relation to fee or stamps. Similarly under section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, the powers have been conferred upon the Provincial Governments to make rules for determining the value of land for purpose of jurisdiction in the suits mentioned in the Court Fees Act, 1870, section 7 paragraphs (v) and (vi) and paragraph (x) of clause (d). The sub‑clause (v) is substituted in different manners by the various Provinces. Sub se (v) as been substituted by Province Punjab is as under:‑‑ For The existing clause (v), the following shall be substituted:‑‑ (v) in suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens according to the value of the subject‑matter; and such value shall be deemed to be; (a) Where the subject‑matter is land and where net profits have arisen from such land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint:‑‑ (b) Where the subject‑matter is land and where no such profits have arisen therefrom. (c) Where the subject‑matter is a house or garden according to the market value of the house of garden." Whereas Province of Sindh vide Sindh Ordinance 13 of 1974 has substituted the same sub‑clause (v) in the following manner:‑‑‑ "For the existing clause (v) the following clause shall be substituted. In suits for the possession of a land, house or garden according to the value of the subject‑matter, and the market value of the land, house or garden shall be deemed to be such value." The connotation and plain reading of substituted clause (v) for Province of Sindh is clear that court‑fee in regard to possession of land, house and garden is to be computed on the basis of value of subject matter and the market value of the land, house or garden shall be deemed to be such value. In this view of the matter, am of the view that case of Illahi Bakhsh and others has no bearing to the facts of the instant case and the computation of court‑fee finder clauses (v) and (vi) in Province of Punjab is different. The case of Illahi Bakhsh and others (supra) is pertaining to Punjab pre‑emption Act whereas the clause (v) of Court Fees Act has different implication in Province of Sindh. The order, dated 7-12‑2000 needs no revival. C.M.A. No.92 of 2001 is misconceived and is dismissed with no order as to‑costs. H.B.T./G‑91/K Application dismissed.