Section 10 : Procedure where net profits or market-value wrongly estimated
2018 MLD 2054 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NAZIR AHMAD BHATTI VS M. YOUNAS
Ss. 10, 6 & 28—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11—Court-fee, determination of—Rejection of plaint on ground of insufficient court-fee—Scope—Plaint or memo. of appeal could not be rejected or dismissed on account of being deficiently stamped unless amount of court fee payable on the same was first determined with exactitude and an opportunity was allowed to the party to pay the deficit amount—Court, on examination of a plaint, if the court found that relief claimed was undervalued, then it was to require the plaintiff to correct valuation within a time fixed by the court, and if plaintiff failed to comply, then the plaint should be rejected under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.—Matter of court fee if required investigation, then the court was to record evidence of the parties bearing on such point of court-fee and if it was found the court-fee was insufficient, then court should stay further proceedings in the suit and require plaintiff to make good the deficiency —Where a court recorded findings on all issues and while dismissing suit on merits also required that court-fee should be paid by plaintiff, in such a case, the said procedure would not be justified.
2010 PLD 197 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD FIAZ VS Ch. YAQOOB HUSSAIN
Ss.6, 10 & 28—Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), Ss.11—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.148, 149, 151 & O. VII, R.11—Plaint or appeal deficiently stamped—Validity–Policy of law not being to penalize a litigant oil account of deficiency of court-fee-Court Fees Act, 1870 not meant to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality against his opponent, but to secure revenue for the State—Plaint presented within limitation period could not be said to be time-barred merely on account of being deficiently stamped—Court could not dismiss suit or appeal without first specifying deficiency in court fee and giving time for making up such deficiency—Deficiency in court-fee could also be made good under S.151, C.P.C.—On compliance of such order, plaint or appeal would have some force and effect as if court fee had been paid in first instance—Conditional order or decree could also be made to effect that failure to supply proper court fee within a time allowed would result in dismissal of suit or rejection of plaint–Principles.
2007 PLD 1 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN VS SAID HUSSAIN KHAN
—S. 149 & O.VII, R.11—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss.10 & 28—Deficiency in court-fee—Appeal by appellant was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that appellant having not paid the court-fee, appeal was incompetent and was not maintainable-
2007 PLD 1 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN VS SAID HUSSAIN KHAN
–Ss. 6, 10 & 28—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 149 & O.VII, R.11—Deficiency in court-fee—Where the Court found that plaint was not properly stamped, then the proper course would be to pass an order under S.10 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 direc
1991 PLD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHALID KARIM VS ADDITIONAL DISTRIC JUDGE
- 13—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Schd. 1, Art. 1 & Ss.28 & 10- -Memorandum of appeal– -Deficiency in court-fee— Effect- –Appeal against the order of Rent Controller having force of decree was governed by Art. 1 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act and ad valorem court-fee was payable on the. subject-matter of the dispute —Words “if he thinks fit” occurring in S.28, their significance and effect —Such words give discretion to the Court in the matter- -Circumstances when exercise of discretion by Court in favour of defaulting party not considered proper— Negligence and contumacy on the part of defaulting party disentitle him to exercise of discretion in his favour.
1989 MLD 2218 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
EJAZ AHMAD KHAN VS SHAUKAT ALI
—Ss. 15 & 21–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 10–Pre-emption suit–Deficiency in court-fee–Proof–Defendants/vendees, contesting, pre-emption suit, contended that suit was not properly valued by plaintiff for purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction and
1989 MLD 1291 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SIRAJ DIN VS MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB
—Ss.15 & 21–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.10–Pre-emption suit–Deficiency in court-fee—Making up of–Trial Court without determining deficiency in courtfee passed vague order requiring pre-emptors to make good deficiency in courtfee in accordance
1989 MLD 1136 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM HUSSAIN VS ALLAH RAKHA
—Ss.15 & 21–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.10–Pre-emption suit–Deficiency in court-fee–Making up of–Deficiency in court-fee was subsequently made up by pre-emptor within time fixed by Appellate Court–Mischief having been removed, suit had become
1988 SCMR 505 SUPREME-COURT
AMAN ULLAH VS WAZIR ALI
—S.21–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss.9 & 10–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) , S .149 & O .VII , R .11–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)–Leave to appeal- -Pre-emption suit–Incorrect valuation for purposes of court-fee–Non-availability
1988 MLD 270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD BASHIR VS Syed ALTAF HUSSAIN SHAH
—S. 15–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 148, 149 & O. VII, R. 11—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 10–Suit for pre-emption–Rejection of plaint- Conditions precedent for rejecting plaint for want of proper court-fee: (i) Court should itself dete
1987 SCMR 1393 SUPREME-COURT
AHMAD KHAN VS MALLA
—S. 149, O. VII, R. 11–Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), Ss. 15 & 21 –Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9 A 10–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)–Pre-emption–Preferential right of tenant–Repugnancy to injunctions of Islam–Suit for pre-
1987 PLD 127 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHUDA YAR VS NAWAZ KHAN
- 149 & O. VII, R. 11-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 6 & 10-Rejection of plaint for non-payment of court-fee-Requirement-Liability of a suit to be taken off, held, could follow only upon failure of plaintiff to supply requisite stamp paper on requisition from Court, to pay same within specified time-Where Court comes to conclusion that a plaint was to be properly stamped, proper course would be an order under S. 10, Court Fees Act, to direct payment of requisite court-fee-Such order could also be passed by Trial Court under S. 6, Court Fees Act in conjunction with S. 149 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
1987 CLC 673 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RAHIM BAKHSH VS ABDUL RASHID
—O.VII, R. 11–Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 10–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 10–Limitation for filing pre-emption suit—Deficiency in court-fee–Making up of–Rejection of plaint–Plaint in pre-emption suit filed within prescribed time, held,
1987 CLC 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
QADIR BAKHSH VS DISTRICT JUDGE
—O.VII, R. 11–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9, 10 & 28—Rejection of plaint–Requirement–Before a plaint could be rejected for non-payment of court-fees, Trial Court, held, would be required to determine, amount of court-fee payable on plaint, di
1986 MLD 534 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RUQAYYA BIBI V: ABDUL MAJID VS 534
Court Fees Act 1870 —S.10(ii)–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11–Rejection of plaint– Requirements–In absence of determination of valuation of suit for purposes of court-fee, held, neither provisions of S.10(ii) of Court Fees Act, 1870 nor that of O.VII, R.11, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, under which plaint could be rejected for non-payment of proper court-fee, would be attracted.
1985 SCMR 1207 SUPREME-COURT
SHUKARUD DIN VS JAN MUHAMMAD
—Art. 185(3)–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss.9 & 10–Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.21–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, r.11 & 5.149–Suit for pre-emption–Court-fees–Deficiency of-Incorrect statement of net profits for determination
1985 CLC 2966 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN VS PANU KHAN
—S. 3–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9 & 10–Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 30–Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S. 15-A—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 149–Pre-emption suit–Valuation- Fixation of–Court-fee–Deficiency–Opport unit
1985 CLC 2945 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SARDAR BEGUM VS JERMALE
—S. 149 and O. VII, r. 11–Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), Ss.4, 21 a 30–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9, 10 & 12–Pre-emption suit–Rejection of plaint–Deficiency in court-fee–Making good of-Opportunity to–Held, it was obligatory for trial
1985 CLC 2765 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD WALAYAT VS ABDUL MAJEED
—O. VII, r. 11(c)–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 7(v)(cj & 10–Pre-emption suit, dismissal of–Grounds for–Deficiency in court-fee–Making good of–Duty of Court–Subordinate Court dismissed pre-emptor’s suit due to non-payment of proper court-fee
1984 PLD 289 SUPREME-COURT
SIDDIQUE KHAN VS ABDUL SHAKUR KHAN
- VII, r. 11, Ss, 148 & 149 read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 28-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 3 & 5 and Arts. 10 & 120-Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), Ss. 4, 21, 27 & 30-Court-tees-Deficiency, making up-Limitation-interpretation of O. VII, r. 11(b)(c), C. P. C.-Contentions (1) that decision of Supreme Court in case of Mst. Walayat Khatun P L D 1979 S C 821 and subsequent reported decisions by Supreme Court has led to conflict of authority, thus leading to confusion, for litigant public and Bar which needed to be resolved, (2) that Supreme Court in a Full Bench case of Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan P L D 1984 S C 157 has pointed out that case of Mst. Walayat Khatun : was authority and law declared only to extent of common ratio of two separate judgments, rendered therein-Held: (1) Decision in Mst. Walayat Khatuns case P L D 1979 S C 821 cannot be assumed to have dissented from Supreme Court judgments in Muhammad Nawaz Khans case P L D 1970 S C 37 and Shah Nawazs case 1972 S C
1984 PLD 157 SUPREME-COURT
SHAHNA KHA VS AULIA KHAN
Ss. 4, 21, 27 & 30-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9 & 10-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 10 & 120-Suit barred by limitation on account of supply of deficit court-fee-Plaintiff not required to obtain statement of net profits before filing suit for pre-emption -Failure of plaintiff to obtain statement of net profits will operate against him when considering question of entertaining court-fee, if same was supplied after institution of suit on, (or even without) objection from defendant or Court-Right of pre-emption established-Court cannot refuse such right in exercise of discretion-Piaintiff cannot be deprived of his right for mere lapse of time unless there had been abandonment, acquiescence or waiver or at least, an alteration in position of defendant in that other party has been put in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him, if remedy were afterwards to be asserted-
1984 PLD 101 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
ABDUL AZIZ VS MUHAMMAD HASSAN
- XIV, rr. I & 2 and S. 115-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9 & 10-Dastoorul Amal Diwani (Kalat), S. 24-Court of Kazi-Valuation of suit-Jurisdiction-Procedure-Framing of issues-1-ailure of Kazi to decide issue regarding valuation of suit before proceeding with trial of case on all other issues-Effect -Whether case decided.[Jurisdiction].
1984 CLC 2284 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SANA ULLAH VS MUHAMMAD ANWAR ALI KHAN
— Ss. 9 & 10-Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 15-Court fee-Wrong estimate of net profits or market value by plaintiff–Court, held, could proceed to make its own estimate under sections 9 and 10 and give opportunity to plaintiff to make good defici
1984 CLC 1557 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AMIR BAKHSH VS WAHID BAKHSH
–Ss. 4, 21, 27 & 30-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9 & 10–Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 10 & 120-Civil Procedure Code (V Of 1908) O. VII, r. I1-Non-making up of deficiency in court-fees within time — Effect – Question of limitation would arise
1984 CLC 582 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHAN MUHAMMAD VS BARKAT ALI
— O. VII, r. 11 (c) & S. 149-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 28 & 10 (ii)-Court-fee-Power vesting on Court to require to supply requisite court-fee-Discretionary-Considerations as of bona fide mistake, inadvertence, lack of due care, negligence and con
1983 PLD 227 SUPREME-COURT
PARVEEN VS JAMSHEDA BEGUM
- VII, r. 11 read with Ss. 148 & 149, Limitation Act (IX of 1908) S. 3 and Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 10(ii) –Rejection of plaint- Court-fee-Deficiency of-Order of trial Court granting, time to supply court-fee complied with by plaintiff-Question of bar of limitation does not arise in such case-Held, such suit could not be dismissed on ground of having become time-barred.
1983 CLC 2517 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD RAFI VS BATOOLAN BIBI
Ss. 9 & 10-Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 21 and Civil Procedure Code (fit of 1908), O. VII, r. 11-Valuation–Suit for possession by pre-emption- Situation of suit for purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction fixed by respondent as also .amount of court-fee paid on plaint admitted by appellants to be correct in their written statement–No mala fides, held, could be presumed on part of respondent nor he could be branded with charge of commission of contumacious negligence in matter of payment of court-fee-Case not being of positive mala fide penalty of rejection of plaint, held further, not warranted.
1983 PLD 215 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SALIM VS INAYATULLAH
Ss. 9 & 10-Scope of Ss. 10 (1) & 11-Words “require” and “The Court shall require the plaintiff to pay so much additional fee as would have been payable, had the suit net profits. been rightly estimated” Interpretation and meaning.-[Interpretation of statutes].
1983 CLC 1502 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SUKMAN KHAN VS NAZAR KHAN
Ss. 9, 10 & 29 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, r. 11 read with Ss. 148 & 149-Court fee-Deficiency-Appellant failing to avail opportunity allowed by appellate Court to properly work out net profits accruing immediately preceding suit and to make good deficiency in court-fee.-Period of limitation for appeal already expiring -Held not obligatory for Court to ascertain in first instance correct amount of net profits and court-fees payable thereon and thereafter to allow opportunity to make good deficiency in court- fee.
1983 CLC 993 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FAZAL BEGUM VS MUHAMMAD DIN
Ss. 28, 9 & 10 – Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 4Court-fees-Deficiency- Evaluation for purpose of court-fee Power and discretion of trial court-Subjected to law and sound judicial principles in light of judgment of Supreme Court if any on point-Determination of case, held, will not turn on power under S. 28 read with Ss. 9 and 10 but on manner in which power has been exercised in a case which would become barred by time if no such order was passed.
1983 CLC 109 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD WARYAM VS SHAHNAZ MASOOD
Ss. 9 and 10 and Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 15Court-fee-Suit for pre-emption-Ordering investigation for ascertaining market value or net profit-Not incumbent upon Court-No investigation under S. 9 ordered provision of S. 10, held, not attracted.
1982 CLC 639 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD KHAN VS MALI
- VII, r. 11 read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9 & 10Court-fee-Deficiency-Respondents failing to give explanation as to why copies of khasra girdawari and statement of net profits not obtained alongwith copies of mutation-Respondents given ample time to file statement of net profits and make good deficiency in court=fee but such opportunity not utilized-Affidavit of Patwari or any other writing not produced to substantiate plea that Patwari was busy in connection with his official work-Conduct of respondents, held, speaks volumes of their negligence and contumacy-Trial Court justified in making order for rejection of plaint.-[Plaint-Court-feel.
1982 PLD 940 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MOOSA BHUNJI VS HASHWANI SALES & SERVICES LTD
Ss. 7(iv) (d) & 10-Valuations by Court-Court-fee, payment of Court, in cases where plaintiff entitled to put his own valuation, coming to conclusion of same having been arbitrarily fixed–Can put its own valuation and ask plaintiff to pay court-fee on such valuation
1981 PLD 371 SUPREME-COURT
FATEH MUHAMMAD VS ABDUL GHANI
Ss. 9 & 10-Deficiency in court-fee-Investigation-Contention that Court under S. 1.0 must first order investigation to be made for determining net profits or market value and could order payment of additional court-fee only after such investigation-Held: Not correct-Words “such investigation” in first line of S. 10.–Make reference to investigation ordered to be held under S. 9 and investigation could be ordered only under such section-Provision of S. 10 consequently not attracted at all where no investigation ordered under S. 9.-jCourt-fee-Interpretation of statutes].
1980 CLC 545 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN VS GHULAM FARID
— O. VII. r. 11 and Court Fees Act (VIL of 1870), Ss. 7 (iv) & (A 9 -& 10-Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 15-Court-fee-Ba,is for correct computation of court-fee not available until towards end of trial-Merely because plaintiff failed to file rele
1980 CLC 186 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
JAN MUHAMMAD VS SHUKARUDDIN
-.- O. VII, r. 11 read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9, 10 & 28–Rejection of plaint-Court not specifying requisite stamp papers to be supplied by plaintiff but leaving matter in general terms, to makeup deficiency in court-fee in hands of plaint
1979 CLC 705 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MASOOD AKHTAR SHAH VS FAZAL AHMAD
- VII, r. 11(b) read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9 & 10-Fee found incorrect-Court has inherent power to call upon plaintiff to satisfy it about valuation-Plaintiffs ordered and given opportunity to correct valuation and affix proper court-fees but plaintiffs failing to affix such court-fees-Plaints rejected.
[Court-fee]
1979 CLC 578 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SANA ULLAH VS MUHAMMAD AKHTAR
- 39-Appeal-Words “value of the original suit”-Mean value as modified by Court.-[Words and phrases].
1979 CLC 414 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM HAIDER VS NOOR MUHAMMAD
Ss. 9 & 10-Suit, valuation of-Deficient court-fee -Trial Court only ordering plaintiff to file statement of net profits by a fixed date so as to enable determination of correct court-fee-No direction, however, given for supply of court-fee by fixed date Order of trial Court dismissing respondent’s suit on ground of non-payment of court-fee in time, held, misdirected.-[Court-fee].
1967 PLD 154 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
BAHADAR SHAH VS SHARAF
(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).