Deficiency in court fee
Deficiency in court fee legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Plaint should not be rejected on account of deficiency of Court fee unless plaintiff was afforded a chance to make up the said deficiency.
Where whole or any part of court-fee prescribed for any document had not been paid court, could at any stage, allow the party to pay the whole or any part of such court-fee.
"Deficiency in court fee", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124963349
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Deficiency in court fee"
1986 C L C 801
MUHAMMAD FAROOQ‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH‑‑Respondent
Court: LahoreL D 1989 Lahore 533
MUHAMMAD SHAFI and another‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD DIN‑‑Respondent
Court:1986 M L D 559
NOOR MUHAMMAD‑‑Appellant Versus RUKKAN DIN‑‑Respondent
Court: Lahore1980 CLC 1621
RAFIQUE AHMED Petition Versus MUHAMMAD AHMED Respondents
Court: --- O. VII, r. 11 (c)-Court-fee, deficiency of-Contention that trial Court was bound to allow opportunity to respondent to make good deficiency in court-fee before rejection of plaint, held, with out force-Trial Court not obliged to allow opportunity to respondent to make good deficiency in court-fee.-Court-fee.1968 S C M R 1321
THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN ETC. Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHANI GRUMMAN‑Respondent
Court: High CourtP L D 1987 Lahore 272
MUBARIK ALI AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus GULZAR AHMAD AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
Court: 0. VII, R. 11‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S. 21‑Pre emption suit‑Deficiency in court‑fee‑Rejection of plaint‑Exact amount of deficiency not worked out by Trial Court at any tage of proceedings but Trial Court gave direction, in general terms, in regard to the payment of proper court‑fee by specified date‑Plaintiff did file statement of net profits and also made good deficiency in court fee before his suit was dismissed‑Held, plaint could not be rejected on the ground that plaintiff had not complied with direction given by Trial Court in general terms, in regard to the payment of proper court‑fee by specified date, after filing statement of net profits Plaintiff was entitled to at least one opportunity for making good the deficiency in court‑fee after same had been determined with exactitude, but since it was not so determined nor opportunity was afforded to plaintiff after determination thereof, plaintiff could not be non‑suited for non‑payment of proper court‑fee at the time of filing suit or before the date by which the plaintiff was directed to make up the deficiency in court‑fee after obtaining the statement of net profits‑When a suit is brought within time, it cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation for the reason that proper court‑fee was not paid within period of limitation prescribed for filing suit. Court‑fee.1984 C L C 1469
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD AMIR AND AN07HER‑Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 1977 Lahore 1422
MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS‑Defendants‑Appellants Versus MUBARIK ALI AND ANOTHER‑Plaintiffs‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑ S. 149 R O. VII, r. 11 (c)‑Deficiency in court‑fees‑Condonation of delay in making up‑‑Court empowered to allow making up deficiency in court‑fees at any stage‑Appellate Court exercising its jurisdiction in allowing making up deficiency in court‑fees and nothing showing discretion having been exercised in flagrant disregard of law. High Court, held, would not interfere with exercise of such discretion -Findings of lower Court that plaintiff neither negligently nor male fide did not comply with orders of Court arrived at after considering all factual circumstances of case and O. VII, r. 11(c) envisaging rejection of plaint for not making up deficiency in court‑fee and not final dismissal of suit after considering it on all its merits O. VII, r. 11(c) being applicable only at interlocutory stage presumption, held, arose in respect of lapse in fulfilment of Court's order being condoned No final order having been passed by Court actually fixing amount of court‑fee payable by plaintiff, appellants‑plaintiffs, held further, could not be said to have been contumacious and negligent so as to be denied right to make up deficiency.‑‑ Court‑fees).1987 M L D 2913
ATA MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore1991 S C M R 978
MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others — Appellants Versus ABDUL HAMID — Respondent
Court: High Court