1989SCMR291 (PLP)
GHIASUDDIN MALIK and others — Petitioners' Versus MUHAMMAD SAEED and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR291 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | GHIASUDDIN MALIK and others — Petitioners' Versus MUHAMMAD SAEED and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Court Fees Act (VII of 1870) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR291 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Court Fees Act (VII of 1870) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR291 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR291 (PLP) (GHIASUDDIN MALIK and others — Petitioners' Versus MUHAMMAD SAEED and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Nisar Ahmad and Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, Advocates Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1988.
- Mian Nisar Ahmad and Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, Advocates Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on-Record for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court Lahore, dated 7th March, 1982 in Civil ReN7sion No. 8 of 1982).
Sch. 11, Item 11(vii)--Suit for administration--Sufficiency in court-fee- Petitioners taking exception to payment of rupees ten made by respondent as court-fee in suit--High Court after looking into matter had arrived at conclusion that respondent was in partial possession of disputed property--Held, subject- matter of dispute could not be estimated in terms of money value and, therefore, court-fee payable in case of such a suit was to be no more than rupees ten only under relevant provisions of Court Fees Act which respondent had already fixed.
Judgment & Decree
DAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 7th March, 1983. Briefly the facts are that Muhammad Saeed respondent brought a suit against his brothers, sisters and brother's sons and widow for administration of the estate and partition of the property left by his late father, for possession of the same as well as for possession of his share of the property, for settlement of accounts and for recovery of mesne profits. On the plaint which he filed he paid Rupees ten worth of court‑fee although the value of the case for the purpose of jurisdiction was mentioned as Rs. 6,50,
000. The present petitioners as well as respondents 2 to 8 took exception to the sufficiency of court‑fee paid by Muhammad Saeed respondent on the ground that he should have paid court‑fee on the amount of the value of his share which he had himself assessed at Rs. 6,50,
000. The trial Court ordered that he should pay court‑fee of Rs. 15,000, whereupon he challenged the said order in civil revision before the Lahore High Court, Lahore which was accepted and the order of the Civil Judge was set aside. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. The matter relates to the payment of court‑fee and the High Court after looking into the matter had arrived at the conclusion that since Muhammad Saeed respondent was in partial possession of the disputed property, the court‑fee payable in the case of such a suit was to be no more than rupees ten under the relevant provisions of the Court‑Fee Act as the subject‑matter of the dispute could not be estimated in terms of money value. Consequently it is not a fit case for the grant of leave. This petition is accordingly dismissed. M.Y.H./G‑136/S Petition dismissed.