Section 17 : Multifarious suits
2015 PLD 356 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD HANIF VS HASHMAT BANO
4—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Sched. II, Art.17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, Rr.10 & 11—Suit for partition—Court fee, affixation of—Scope—Plaint, rejection of—Defendants filed application for return of plaint to the plaintiff for presentation in the court having pecuniary jurisdiction but Trial Court rejected the same (suo motu) observing that the value of property was much more than the suit valued by the plaintiff—Validity—Plaintiff and defendants were legal heirs of the deceased and were co-sharers in his property—Every co-sharer would be deemed to be in possession of each and every inch of the property whether such possession was physical or constructive—Plaintiff would be deemed to be in possession of the property—Plaintiff had asked for separation of his share after demarcation from other co-sharers—Plaint as well as appeal arising out of partition suit was chargeable with fixed court fee of Rs.10/- only—Plaint did not require to be affixed with an ad valorem court fee according to value and share of the plaintiff—Trial Court had rejected the plaint straightaway without determining the proper value and without providing reasonable time and opportunity to make deficiency good within time which was contrary to the provisions of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.—Impugned orders passed by the courts below were not sustainable in law which were set aside—Matter was remanded to the Trial Court for proceeding on merits in accordance with law.
2015 PLD 356 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD HANIF VS HASHMAT BANO
Sched. II, Art. 17—Partition Act (IV of 1893), S. 4—Suit for partition—Court fee, affixation of—Scope—Plaint as well as appeal arising out of partition suit was chargeable with fixed court fee of Rs.10/- only.
2012 PLD 271 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. SURRAYA IQBAL VS P.A.R. CO.
Ss. 18 & 26—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Sched. II, Arts.17(iii) & (iv) & Sched. 1, Art.1—Appeal against rejection of reference to civil court made under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Affixing of court-fee—Reference under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made on an application to the effect that the compensation awarded was inadequate and the same was not acceptable to the appellant—Reference under S.18 was not a suit although the award given in the proceedings was deemed to be decree under S.26 of the said Act—Articles 17(iii) and 17(iv) of Sched. II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 would not apply and appeal against the judgment rejecting the award and upholding compensation determined by the Collector would fall under Art. 1 of Sched. I of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
2011 CLC 1239 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HUSSAIN ALI VS Shaikh MUHAMMAD SHAHID
17 & Sched. I, Art. 1—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.3 & O.II, R.3—Multifarious suits—Court-fee, affixing of—Principles—Court-fee has to be calculated in a manner that court-fee of every individual cause of action is to be added upto together into an aggregate amount and then affixed with plaint.
2010 CLC 1603 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD SHABBIR VS Mrs. FARAHA BIBI
S.12—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.17 & Sched. I, Art. 1—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11—Application of S.17, Court Fees Act, 1870—Scope—Suit for specific performance of sale agreement mentioned two properties—Plaint showing payment of maximum court fee thereon by plaintiff—Rejection of plaint, application for—Defendant’s plea that plaintiff claiming specific performance of two different properties was liable to pay separate court fee thereon—Validity—Applicability of provisions of S.17 of Court Fees Act, 1870 confined to a suit containing multifarious causes of action and different reliefs claimed in plaint for purposes of ad valorem court fee in vogue prior to fixation of maximum limit of court fee for plaint—Maximum court fee had been affixed on plaint against valuation of suit, thus, provision of S.17 of Court Fees Act, 1870 would not apply to the present case—Such application was dismissed in circumstances.
2008 CLC 27 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD MOHIUDDIN VS SINDH PRIVATIZATION COMMISSION
Ss. 3, 27 & 28—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.17 & First Sched. Art.1, Sr. No.1—Auction of five different lots of lands by Privatization Commission—Suit by plaintiff seeking transfer of such lands in his favour by Commission—Court-fee, leviability of—Plaintiff had made five different offers for five different lots of lands—Every bid was a distinct transaction—Court-fee would be payable on basis of valuation of subject of suit—Maximum court-fee of Rs.15,000 would be payable on such suit.
2007 CLC 532 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SHAUKAT VS Haji GHULAM MUHAMMAD
—Sched-I, Art.1, Sched-II, Art.17(vi)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115—Partition suit—Appeal decided in terms of award of arbitrators—Calculation and payment of court-fee on memorandum of appeal—Plaintiff filed suit for partition of pro
2007 PLD 224 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
UMEED ALI VS GOVERNMENT OF SINDH
—S.17 & Sched. I, Art.1—Sindh Finance Ordinance (VII of 1977), S.2—Sindh Finance Act (IV of 1990), Ss.4 & 6—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.2-A & 37(d)—Multifarious suits—Maximum court fee payable—Plaintiffs jointly maintaining one sui
2006 PLD 593 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Messrs IMPERIAL BUILDERS through Managing Partner VS LINES (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive
—S. 17—Multifarious causes of action joined in one suit—Court-fee, determination of—Each claim, on basis of cause of action, would be valued separately and requisite court-fee would be paid thereon.
2006 PLD 593 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Messrs IMPERIAL BUILDERS through Managing Partner VS LINES (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive
—O. II, Rr.3(1), 6 & O.VII, R.11(c)—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.17—Joinder of two distinct and separate causes of action based on two distinct subjects—Court-fee already paid on plaint payable on one relief based on one cause of action—Effec
2006 PLD 593 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Messrs IMPERIAL BUILDERS through Managing Partner VS LINES (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive
–S. 12—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11(c)—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.17—Suit by two plaintiffs for specific performance of two independent agreements to sell relating to separate properties—Rejection of plaint for being insuffi
2006 PLD 155 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ANWARUL HUDA VS FAHIMUL HUDA
—S. 17—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XL, R.1—Multifarious suit—Court fees—Computation—Principles—Aggregate value of only such reliefs is to be taken into account which are distinct and final in nature—Where one relief is not distinct
2002 CLD 1170 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SAUDI-PAK INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED, ISLAMABAD VS MOHIB TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED LAHORE
Court Fees Act 1870 —-S.17—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.9—Suits for recovery of Bank loan—Multifarious suits—Court fees, fixation of—Scope–Suits which embraces two or more distinct causes of action and when a suit is filed combining multifarious causes of action, then each claim on the basis of causes of action is to be valued separately and requisite court fee is to be paid on the suit under the provisions of S.17 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
2002 CLD 712 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Messrs NAQI BEVERAGES (PVT.) LTD
Court Fees Act 1870 —-S.17—Multifarious suits–Joining of causes of action–Insufficiency of court-fee—Contention of the defendant was that court fee was insufficiently stamped—Validity—Where the plaintiff had paid the maximum court fee, suit was not insufficiently stamped but was properly valued in circumstances.
2002 CLC 1549 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. PARVEEN AKHTAR VS AZHAR ALI
—-Ss. 39 & 42—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7(iv)(c), Sched. II, Art. 17(iii)—Declaration and cancellation of document —Court-fee–Where suit is to obtain simple declaratory relief, court-fee payable in such suit is under Art. 17(iii) of the Sc
2000 MLD 1611 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN VS MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN
—-S.42—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(iv)(c) & Sched. II, Art. 17(iii)– Suit for declaration—Court-fee payable—Declaration sought for under S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, must relate to title or to any legal character or to any right as to
1994 CLC 1664 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MEHMOOD AHMED VS SARWAR SULTANA
7(iv)(b) & Art. 17(vi)—Suit for partition of property jointly owned by parties—Court fee—Mode of payment—Suit for partition of joint property can be filed on payment of Rs.15 as court-fee under Art. 17(vi), Court Fees Acts 1870, which covers a suit where it is not possible to estimate money value the subject-matter of dispute and which is not otherwise provided for under Court Fees Act—Ordinarily, in partition suit, it was not possible to estimate money value of the subject-matter correctly and it was left to be decided finally after recording evidence of both parties—Court would thereafter, require plaintiff to pay deficit court-fee on basis of final determination of the value of subject-matter in question—Provision of S: 7(iv)(b) of the Act was not applicable in such cases—Where, however, any person was ousted from the property and his claim to a share therein was denied by other co-owners then the court-fee was payable under S. 7(iv)(b) for enforcing a right to share in joint family property—There being no denial of plaintiffs, entitlement to a share in a property in question, mere fact that in evidence some estimate of the value of property had been given was not enough to apply provision of S.7(iv)(b), Court Fees Act for payment of ad valorem court-fee at present stage.
1993 SCMR 683 SUPREME-COURT
ASLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., KHANPUR VS PAKISTAN EDIBLE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN
Court Fees Act 1870 —-S.17 & Sched. 1, Art.1, proviso—Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.185(3)—Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the provision S.17, Court Fees Act, 1870 was subject to the provisions of proviso to Art.l Sched. I of the said Act. —-S.17—Suit of a multifarious nature falling under S.17 of the Act —Court-i payable on such suit would be the aggregate of the fee separately chargeable on the separate causes of action.
1992 CLC 553 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
WALAYAT BEGUM VS WAZIR BEGUM
7 (iv) (b) & Art. 17, Sched. II—Co-sharer’s suit for partition —Court fee—Suit by a co-sharer for partition was to be stamped with a court-fee of Rs.10 under Art. 17 (vi), Sched. II of Court Fees Act, 1870 and such suit did not fall under S.7 (iv) (b), Court Fees Act, 1870.
1991 PLD 174 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES VS MASOOD AUTO STORES
S.17—Provisions of S.17 apply to suits which embrace two or more distinct causes of action—Word “subject” used in S.17—Connotation—When a suit. is filed combining multifarious causes of actions, then each claim on the basis of causes of action is to be valued separately and requisite court-fee is to be paid on it.–[Words and phrases]
1991 CLC 640 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MANZOOR HUSSAIN VS BHOLE KHAN
12 — Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.13 — Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.1.7 — Plaint in suit embracing two distinct subjects — Liability to pay court-fee — Plaintiffs were obliged to separately assess and pay court-fee on their plaint in suit which embraced two distinct subjects — Plaintiffs having assessed one subject in plaint paid court-fee on relief for possession through pre-emption but paid no court-fee in respect of their claim for specific performance of agreement to sell in their favour — Plaint was thus, deficiently stamped and plaiqtiff9 were bound to make good such deficiency in court-fee.
1987 PLD 290 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
- B. P. VS ELEGZENDAR & COMPANY
S.7–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, R.3–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.17 b Sched. I, Art. 1, proviso–Leave to defend suit–Court-fees–Defendant raising question as to whether provisions regarding maximum court-fee as contained in proviso to Art. 1 of Sched.I of Court Fees Act, 1870 was to have an overriding effect on provisions of S.17, Court Fees Act, 1870–Question being of great general imporance needed to be dealt within a proper trial–Leave to defend suit was granted.
1985 PLD 537 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL VS JAMIL-UR-REHMAN
Ss. 7(v) & 17, Art. 1-Preamble-Court-fee.-Deficiency of-Deficiency in court-fee to be made before final disposal of suit-Suit did not terminate with passing of preliminary decree but still pending and deficiency in court-fee could be made before final disposal of case Court does not become functus officio after passing of preliminary decree.
1984 CLC 2705 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AVA A. COWASJEE VS NASREEN NIZAM SHAH
—S.17 [as amended by Court Fees (Sind Amendment) Ordinance (VII of 1977)]–Suit filed by plaintiffs embracing several distinct subjects-Plaintiffs making separate claims against defendants–Relief claimed by different plaintiffs based upon distinct subj
1983 SCMR 316 SUPREME-COURT
ASLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., KHANPUR VS PAKISTAN EDIBLE CORPORATION
–Art. 185 (3) and Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 17, Sched. I Art. I as substituted by Punjab Finance Act, 1973–Leave to appeal Contention that S. 17 of Court Fees Act is subject to provisions of Art. 1 of Sched I of Act-Contention raised requires fur
1980 CLC 773 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HASHIM & CO. KARACHI VS INDUS INSURANCE CO. LTD.
— S. 17 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151-Excess court-fee paid under S. 17, Court Fees Act–Refundable under S. 151, C. P. C.-Inherent powers of Court under S. 151, C. P. C., held, can be invoked to make order for refund.-[Court-feel].
1980 PLD 492 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
YOUSAF A. MITHA VS ABOO BAKER
7 (iv)(c) & Art. 17(iii) (1) & (2)-Defendants shareholders in alleged violation of an article of memo. of association of Company entering into agreement with defendant No. 3 for sale of their shares-Plaintiff on refusal of defendants to cancel a4reement filing suit praying for ration of such agreement Was illegal and for injunction restraining defendants from enforcing such agreement Suit, held, a suit for declaration with consequential relief and therefore covered by S. 7 (iv) and not Art. 17(iii) of Second Schedule
1967 PLD 733 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AISHA BAI VS USMAN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER
Court Fees Act 1870 —– S. 7 (iv) (c) & 17—-Declaratory suit-Plaintiff in addition to declaration praying for consequential relief-Case governed by S. 7(iv)(c)-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42.
1967 PLD 203 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
TARACHAND MONDAL AND OTHERS VS HAZARI SHAIKH AND ANOTHER
42-Declaratory suit by plaintiff in possession of property that sale-deed executed by his benamidar not binding on him and praying further that defendants be restrained from interfering with his possession-Payment of fixed court fee as well as court fee for consequential relief prayed, viz. permanent injunction-Sufficient-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7(iv)(c) and Sch. 11, Art. 17(iii).
1965 PLD 686 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS MST. NATHO
Court Fees Act 1870 —-Sch. II, Art. 17 (vi)-Suit for partition-“Physical” possession of property not necessary to attract application of Art. 17 (vi)-Allegation in plaint of “actual” or “constructive” possession sufficient-Determination of court fee-Courts to see nature of cause of action and relief claimed.
1962 PLD 209 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ZAINAB BAI VS IBRAHIMJI
Court Fees Act 1870 Ss. 17 (b) & 49Dissolution of partnership-Deed of dissolution by which one partner relinquishes his share in immovable property of firm-Requires registration to constitute effective relinquishment.
1961 PLD 349 SUPREME-COURT
AJIRUDDIN MONDAL AND ANOTHER VS RAHMAN FAKIR AND OTHERS
—Granted where law point involved required an authoritative decision by Supreme Court-[Scot for partition-Jurisdictional value of suit when plaintiff alleges joint possession -(East Pakistan case)]-Court Fees Act (VII of 1,370), Sch. II, Art. 17 (v-a)-S
1961 PLD 191 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
ABDUL MANNAF VS ABDUL HAQUE TALUKDAR
—— Sch. II, Art. 17 (iii)-Determining nature of suit for purpose of Court-fees-Substance of plaint rather than form in which reliefs are couched is to be looked into–Suit for declaration with redundant added relief-Plaintiff should not be burdened wi
1959 PLD 101 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN VS MUHAMMAD HASSAN AND OTHERS
—–S. 7 (iv) (c) and Sch. II; Art. 17 (iii)- Declaratory suit-Averments in plaint to be taken as a whole to determine whether suit is with, or without consequential relief, though relief clause is couched in simple declaratory form–Suit for declaration
1952 PLD 495 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL HAFIZ VS SH. MUHAMMAD SADIQ
—–S. 7 (iv) (c), Schedule II Art. 17 (iii)-Reliefs claimed : (1) Declaration that suit property is waqf (2) and (3) Declaration that certain alienations of suit property void against waqf (4) Declaration that a certain Limited Society’s order of forfei
1949 PLD 8 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MIAN KARAM ILAHI VS MUHAMMAD BASHIR
Court-fees Act (VII of 1870), Schedule II, Art. 17.-Suit for simple declaration-On defendant’s objections found to be one for declaration and consequential relief —Plaintiff should be allowed to put his own valuation for Court-fees-Valuation for jurisdiction follows automatically.
1949 PLD 1 JUDICIAL-COMMISSIONER-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
SHARKAT-E-PUSHTOON LIMITED VS THE SECRETARY OF STATE
It is thus open to this Court to see what the nature of the suit is. If a substantive relief is claimed, though disguised in the garb of a declaratory decree with or without consequential relief, the Court is entitled to see what the real subject behind the relief ostensibly sought is, and if the Court is satisfied that it is a substantive relief which is aimed at, as in this case it’ can demand proper Court-fee on that relief, disregarding the valuation put on it by the plaintiff arbitrarily. A I R 1944 Patna 17, A I R 1937 Sind 241; A I R. 1932 All. 485 1939 Nag. 50; and 1941 Sind 154 Relied on. 1941 Lahore 284, distinguished. .