Section 11 : Procedure in suits for mesne profits or account when amount decreed exceeds amount claimed
2016 PLD 602 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. RASHIDAN BIBI VS AMAN ULLAH KHAN BANGSH
- 33 & O.XX. R.6—Partition Act (IV of 1893), S.4—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.11—Suit for partition—Non-preparation of decree due to non-submission of stamp papers—Effect—Decree was not drawn for non-submission of stamp papers by the court below—Validity—Decree should follow the judgment when same was passed—Drawing up of decree could not be withheld by the court—Certified copy of decree had to be supplied to the parties to enable them to file appeal—Decree would not be executable until court-fee was paid—Court could not stop preparation of final decree of the suit for partition pending payment of stamp duty or other taxes—Impugned orders passed by the courts below were set aside which were passed without lawful authority having no legal effect—Application for drawing up of decree-sheet was allowed—Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.
1993 CLC 224 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SAJJAD AHMAD VS MUHAMMAD YOUNUS
- 13—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Sched. II, Art. 11—Order of ejectment —Court-fee payable on memorandum of appeal—Order passed by Rent Controller under S. 13, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, having the force of a decree ad valorem court-fee on memorandum of appeal against such order, therefore, must be paid—Order of dismissal was as much a decree as a decree passed in favour of plaintiff—Any formal adjudication of a matter whether in favour of one party or the other, would carry the same status; question as to whether that decision had force of a decree could not be made dependent upon the result being in favour of one party or the other.
1987 MLD 70 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Rana M. YASIN VS MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN
Court Fees Act 1870 —A.11 (1)–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11–Provisions of S. 11 (1) of Court Fees Act, 1870 not repealed by implication by provisions of O.VII, R.11, Civil Procedure Code, 1908–Section 11 of Court Fees Act would come into play after a decree was passed-Provisions of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. however, could be invoked during continuance of proceedings prior to final disposal of a suit–Both the provisions viz. those of Court Fees Act and Civil Procedure Code were neither contradictory nor inconsistent with each other–Court Fees Act being a special law could not be deemed to have been repealed by general law i.e. Civil Procedure Code, 1908.–[Interpretation of statutes].
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 & 30-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 28-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 149 -Payment of court-fees in pre-emption suit on determination of value of subject-matter in that behalf through (prevalent) practice of calculation on basis of annual net profits, held, has led to unfortunate long delays, unnecessary expense and unnecessary litigation on hypertechnical issues-Attempts also made to misuse law and practice in order to obtain undue advantage-Amendment in relevant law suggested.
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].
1980 PLD 145 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AKBAR ALI VS EHSAN ELLAHI
Sched. 11, Art. 11-Repeal of enactments-Court-fee payable-Right of appeal one thing and payment of court-fee another-Appeal, held, must be valued according to provision of law in operation at time of its presentation and original value put in plaint under repealed enactment to be disregarded.-[Interpretation of statutes-Appeal (civil)].
1980 CLC 2177 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ZAFAR HUSSAIN RIZVI VS MUHAMMAD HANIF
— Art. 11, Sched. II and Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 30 & 39..–Order setting aside or refusing to set side an award under section 30 of Act X of 1940-Not a decree-Appeal against such order, held, maintainable.-[Appeal (civil)].
1979 CLC 95 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS NAZIR AHMAD
- 8 read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1872), S. I1-Jurisdictional value, determination of-Suit for account-Value for purposes of jurisdiction for filing appeal–To be determined by amount decreed and not by jurisdictional value mentioned in plaint-Value given in plaint however, to determine forum, in any other appeal against a preliminary decree.
1970 PLD 82 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
AMIN SHAH-DEFENDANT VS ABDUL RAUF AND ANOTHER—PLAINTIFF
Court Fees Act 1870 S. 11-Suit for rendition of accounts-Plaintiff entitled to fix tentative value of subject-matter of suit-Decree in suit can, however, be executed when plaintiff makes up deficiency in court-fee-Ad valorem court fee to be paid on decretal amount instead of such tentative value if defendant challenges decree.