Court-Fee

Plaintiffs filed suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 9,98,000 against defendants to the effect that predecessor-in-interest of defendants being owner was doing business of cotton with the plaintiffs and owed an amount of Rs. 998,000 to the plaintiffs which was acknowledged by him in the year 1998

Defendants contested suit on the grounds of cause of action and preparation of forged, collusive and bogus document with signature of the deceased

Trial Court decreed suit of the plaintiffs

Appellate Court on appeal passed conditional order subject to payment of court fee of Rs.15,000 upto next date of hearing

Application before the fixed date of hearing was moved by appellants which was dismissed and appeal was also dismissed for non-payment of court-fee-Validity-Appellate Court first time on 9-8-2006 extended time' to make up deficiency of court fee upto 14-9-2006

Before expiry of extended time, one day earlier, the appellants submitted an application for extention of time to make up the deficiency of court-fee-Appellate Court could extend time further for making up the deficiency of court fee of Rs.15,000

Respondent's claim that appeal was time-barred was not discussed in the judgment by Appellate Court

High Court allowed one opportunity to appellants to make up the deficiency of court fee and remanded the case to Appellate Court for decision afresh with direction to both parties to appear before Trial Court on 5-11-2009

Appellants had voluntarily offered to deposit Rs.20,000 as cost in the account of the dispensary of High Court Bar Association before appearing before lower appellate court on 5-11-2009

Appeal was allowed by High Court.

When there was negligence or contumacious attitude of the litigant, then in no way the time in making of the deficiency of court-fee should be granted.

Question of Court-fee, though being matter between subject and State, yet same must be paid by party in Court, whose duty was to look into deficiency of Court-fee and direct party to make up deficiency, if found upon examination of document.

Appellant cannot raise the question of court fee in a suit in which deficiency in the court fee, as ordered by the Court before passing of a decree, was made good by the respondent, thus, even if there was a defect, same stood cured under law.

Court fee is a matter between the State and the litigant and the rival party cannot use it as a tool to non-suit a party on failure to deposit the court fee.

Payment of proper court-.fee is essentially a matter. between the Court and the litigant.

Payment of court-fee being x matter between the suitor and the State, defendant can have no grievance to make on this account.

Court-fee being primarily a matter between Court and litigant, no right accrued to opposite party if plaint was deficiently stamped.

Principles.

Neither any objection as to deficiency in the payment of court-fee was raised by the office nor by the Court when the appeal was admitted

Fact of deficiency in paying court-fee was brought to the notice of Court by the appellant himself through an application wherein a complaint was made that he was misled in paying a lesser court-fee by the decree-sheet and prayed for permission to make up deficiency-Held the Court was under a legal obligation to have allowed the appellant to make the deficiency in the payment of court-fee

Case remanded by Supreme Court to decide the appeal on merits after making up deficiency in court-fee.

Additional District Judge on appeal of respondent-defendant setting aside judgment and decree of Trial Court and remanding case for fresh decision

Determination of an issue of law was the duty of Court especially when question raised pertained to payment of Court-fee

Concession made by parties for not seriously stressing objection would not absolve Court of its duty of giving finding in light of evidence available on record

Such finding also being necessary for determining competency of Court regarding pecuniary jurisdiction in trying the suit, order of remand passed by Appellate Court in circumstances of case, held, needed no interference

Question whether ad valorem Court-fee would be leviable on the plaint was left open for Trial Court for determination in light of evidence of parties available on record.

Leave to appeal granted to examine contentions that initial failure to pay proper amount of court-fee was due to erroneous entry in decree-sheet in that regard; that in any case petitioners were entitled to an opportunity for making up the deficiency as laid down in P L D 1984 S C 289; and that petitioners having made up the deficiency within time granted by District Judge, the High Court erred in law in making an order which had the effect of dismissing their appeal.

Deficiency of-Incorrect statement of net profits for determination of court-fees-Negligence of pre-emptor with mala fide objective

Penalised by rejection of plaint under 0. VII, r. 11, C.P.C.

Challenged

Method adopted for disposal of case disapproved by High Court

Application of mind to facts of case and recourse to relevant provisions of law necessary

Order set aside with direction to proceed afresh for determination of exact court-fees

Plea raised in Supreme Court that circumstances justified penalty of rejection of plaint, held, not tenable in view of recent decisions of Court

Impugned order being in conformity with law laid down earlier, leave to appeal refused.

Court-fee-Leave to appeal granted to consider questions (i) whether order of District Judge allowing petitioner to make up deficiency in court-fee on appeal and adjourning case for assessment of court-fee was not contrary to law and (ii) whether on finding order of District Judge to be contrary to law it was necessary for High Court to remand case back to him instead of deciding same itself. [Court-feel

S. 149-Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 4-Court-fee-Deficiency, making up of-Pre-emption suit filed by plaintiff pre-emptor when only one day left from expiry of limitation period Trial Court requiring plaintiff to make up deficiency in court-fee after filing statement of net profits within specified time-Trial Court granting extensions in time ex parse in routine mechanically and without application of mind and there was no reasonable cause before trial Court to direct plaintiff to complete court-fee and no application was made by plaintiff giving reasons for permission to make good deficiency-Held, on account of expiry of limitation period of suit valuable right accrued in favour of defendant/ vendee which could not have been taken away without hearing them.-[Limitation].

S. 15-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)-Court-fee- Question of court-fee not pressed before High Court-Held, cannot be allowed to raise such question before Supreme Court.

Arts. 185(3) & 199 and Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 28-Courtfee-Deficiency-Member, Board of Revenue non-suiting respondent for not having made up deficiency in Court-fee for six years-High Court however, holding decision to be of no legal effect due to question of late payment having not been taken in suit or memo. of appeal Whether High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction could interfere with order of Member Board of Revenue on such grounds-Leave to appeal granted to consider question.-[Court-fee-Leave to appeal].

S. 149 & O. VII, r. 11(c)-Court-fee-Deficiency-Permission to make good-Provisions of O. VII, r. 11(c) and S. 149 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908-To be read and applied together where deficiency in court-fee required to be made good after expiry of period of limitation-Act of not paying proper amount of court-fee contumacious or actuated by tnala fides-Court not to grant indulgence to plaintiff of permitting him to make good court-fee after expiry of period of limitation-Court-fee amounting to Rs. 5,485 but only a sum of Rs. 10 pair) as court-fee and suit also filed on last date of period of limitation Conduct of plaintiff being actuated by mala fides, lower Court, held, rightly refused to permit plaintiff to make good deficiency in courtfee.

O. VII, r. 11-Rejection of plaint-Court-fee-Deficiency ofCivil Court directing plaintiff to deposit portion of pre-emption money and to pay deficit court-fee-Plaintiff failing to take any step in matter for one year and neglecting to pay balance of court-feeOrder of Assistant Collector, to whom case meanwhile transferred, rejecting plaint and upheld by higher Revenue Authorities-Held, High Court justified in refusing to interfere with concurrent findings of Revenue Authorities-West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957).-[Plaint-Court-feel.

S. 28-Court-fee-Deficiency-Point of deficiency of court-fee once taken up by Court-Court, held, possesses jurisdiction to deal with such matter in accordance with law on subject.

S. 149-Court-fee-Deficiency, making up of-Power of Court Respondents-plaintiffs moving for obtaining of copies of relevant documents roughly after eleven months from time of knowledge of sale of suit land and near about time they decided to institute suit for pre-emption-Facts showing negligence on part of plaintiff for not having obtained copies of relevant documents in order to assess correct amount of court-fee required for institution of suit within period of limitation-Matter being one of pre-emption duty cast on Court to satisfy itself before allowing extension of time as to whether or not cogent reasons existed for showing indulgence in favour of pre-emptor and to grant time for two days after due date, such having effect of causing prejudice to appellant-vendee whose title perfected by expiry of period of limitation Court, held, did not exercise its discretion legally and properly in allowing extension of time to make. up deficiency in court-fee in circumstances.-[Court-fee -Limitation]

Payment by all persons affected-Counsel for parties voluntarily agreeing court-fee paid by appellant to be shared by all owners of shamlat deh equally, whether such persons be or not be parties to case and High Court ordering accordingly-Contention that High Court was not justified in directing respondents to pay on such account, held, without any force in circumstances.

Supply of court-fee stamps on certified copy of impugned judgment-Instead of single eight-anna stamp, stamps of smaller, denomination axed without requisite certificate of stamp-vendor explaining non-supply of single stamp of required value-Contention that copy not being properly stamped at time -of filing appeal defect could not be cured after period of filing appeal had expired-Contention repelled.

Relief claimed in, or subject-matter of appeal different from that of suit-Court fee payable on appeal different from that paid in suit-Court-fee in appeal-To be determined by subject-matter and relief claimed in appeal.

Plaint or memo. of appeal-Cannot be treated as properly presented so long as proper court fee is not paid.

Court-Fee -Trial Court, after concluding hearing and delivering judgment, finding plaintiff to have paid deficit court fee, and on direction of Court plaintiff paying same-Plaintiff, not moving higher Court against such order-Order to pay deficit court fee cannot, in circumstances, be agitated at appellate stage.

S. 7-Accounts-Suit for Court-fee-Plaintiff at liberty to value suit for purposes of court fee; at any figure lie chooses-for purpose of choosing forum of appeal arising out of such suit, appellant to follow value put by plaintiff himself-Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S. 8.

S. 18 and Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 8 - Reference - Appeal - Court fee - Single reference filed by Government against all inhabitants and only one award made by Collector about whole village-Question of separate appeals by effected persons does not arise-Findings of Court could be challenged by single appeal-Computation of court fee payable on such appeal according to difference between amount awarded and amount claimed-Matter merely of academic interest-Deficiency of court-fee-No objection ever taken in such regard during pendency of appeal-Cannot form basis for review of judgment-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLVII, r. 1.

Plaintiff after institution of suit-Can reduce his claim and be allowed to pay Court fee on reduced amount.

(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, rr. 1(i) & 11-Court-fee-Valuation-Statement in plaint to be accepted unless proved to contrary-Suit not valued correctly due to wrong estimation of annual profits of suit land-Court to proceed under Ss. 9 & 10, Court Fees Act (VII of 1870).

Value stand by plaintiff for purpose of jurisdiction-To be taken as value for purpose of court fee.

Recovering possession of premises from transferee of tenant who had no right to transfer-Court fee to be paid under S. 7 (xi) and not under S. 7 (v).

Court-Fee Court-fee-Single adhesive stamp of required value not available-Certificate of non-availability from stamp-vendor produced subsequently to presentation of document in Court-Document, held, validly stamped-Rules 1 and 4, Punjab Court Fees Stamp Rules, 1934-Rule 4 exceeds power given by S. 27 Court Fees Act (VII of 1870).

Pre-emption suit-Amount of Court-fee on plaint and question of jurisdiction of Court should be decided on merits and not on a prima facie basis with reference to price mentioned in sale deed.

Partition suit-Court-fee-Allegation of joint possession in plaint-Plaintiff, on defendant's objection paying ad valorem court-fee on her share without, however, amending her plaint and deleting allegation of joint possession-Plaint remains a plaint under Art. 17 (vi), Sched. 11 Court Fees Act (111 of 1870)Court fee on plaint Rs. 10-Court fee on appeal Rs. 10.