1999 PLP 1147 (YLR)

Vide order dated 19‑1‑1998 this revision application was admitted to regular hearing, whereafter the learned counsel for the applicant had on 2‑2‑1998 moved an application bearing Miscellaneous Application No.24 of 1998 seeking issuance of certificate authorizing the applicant to claim refund of Court fees in the sum of Rs.15,

000. Both the learned counsel agree that in the light of the reported judgment appearing. in PLD 1993 SC page 76 (Sh. Riaz‑ud‑Din v. Aqil‑ur‑Rehman Siddiqui and 4 others) no other view could possibly be taken and, therefore, by consent of the parties regular hearing of this Revision Application No. 79 of 1997 is taken up today. The brief facts have already been mentioned in the order of admission and in the light of the judgment, with all humility at my command I would subscribe to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court. The observation of the Supreme Court being that the State under Article 2A is obligated to secure the ends of social justice which inter alia obligate the State to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice as is contemplated by Article 37(d) of the Constitution. Admittedly, in the present case also, an amicable settlement was arrived at out of Court consequent to which compromise was recorded and the proceedings were withdrawn. Such arrangement resulted into the fact that the trial Court was not burdened to spend its valuable time in examining the case, in hearing the arguments in connection therewith and formally taking time to write the judgment and yet retain the court‑fees. This refusal to the refund of court‑fees operates to defeat the mandate of Constitution and it penalises the party for approaching the Court instead of assisting it to obtain inexpensive and speedy justice. In the light of the aforementioned, and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, I subscribe to and adopt the interpretation which has furthered the objectives of the Constitution of Pakistan rather than to negate them. I would further observe that the learned lower Court had erred in refusing the certificate to the applicant to receive back the amount of court‑fees spent by him on the plaint and ought to have interpreted section 13 of the Court Fees Act being a sub‑Constitutional legislation in a manner which could have further achieved the objective and the spirit of the Constitution rather than to negate them. In the light of aforementioned, I would set aside the order passed by the learned IVth Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, Sindh, on 26‑4‑1997 and I would direct the grant of certificate authorizing the applicant to receive back from the Collector an amount of Rs.15,000 paid by the applicant on account of Court fees on the plaint. This revision application is allowed by consent. The listed application (M.A. 24 of 1998) also stands disposed of in the light of the main revision having been allowed. H.B.T./F‑59/K