Section 12 : Decision of question as to valuation
2018 CLC 805 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Mir JAWAZ KHAN VS GUL BATH KHAN
149 & O.VII, R.11—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss.12 & 28—Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S.11—Rejection of plaint—Non-deposit of requisite court-fee—Scope—Suit was filed against petitioners who sought rejection of plaint on grounds that plaintiffs did not deposit requisite court-fee—Application was dismissed by Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court—Validity—In view of provisions of Ss.12 & 18 of Court Fees Act, 1870 and S.11 of Suits Valuation Act, 1887, deficiency in court-fee could be ordered to be made good subsequently—Likewise, provisions of O.VII, R.11 & S.149, C.P.C., read together led to conclusion that where court-fee affixed was found to be deficient, court could not dismiss suit or appeal without specifying deficiency and fixing date for payment—On compliance, it had same force and effect as if fee had been paid in first instance—High Court declined to interfere in the matter—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2017 YLR 26 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
HABIB AKBAR VS Pir AZAM SYED
XLI, Rr. 1, 2, 3, 9, 12, O. VII, R. 11(c), Ss. 96, 148 & 149—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 4, 5, 6, 12 & 28—Appeal— Limitation— Non-affixation of court fee—Effect—Appeal was filed within prescribed period of limitation and admitted for hearing giving notice to the opposite party but after that same was dismissed due to non-affixation of court fee on the point of limitation—Validity—No one could be punished for any act of the court—If appellant had not acted with mala fide intention while filing the appeal and same was admitted then appeal could not be dismissed on account of non-fixation of court-fee on the point of limitation—Sections 4 & 5 of Court-Fee Act, 1870 had placed bar on institution or receiving any document chargeable with court-fee unless proper court fee had been affixed thereon but S. 149, C.P.C. was an exception to the said rule—Court and its functionaries were bound to scrutinize the memorandum of appeal to ascertain whether same was properly stamped—Once appeal was admitted without objection or direction then it could not be rejected later on due to deficiency in court fee—Appellate court had to determine either on application of appellant or itself whether a case was made out for extension of time either under S. 149, C.P.C. or under Ss. 12 & 28 of Court-Fees Act, 1870—Appeal was dismissed without application of provision contained in O. VII, R. 11(c), C.P.C.—Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to the Appellate Court with the direction to decide the same afresh after supplying requisite court-fee within thirty days by the appellant—Revision was allowed in circumstances.
2010 CLC 1032 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM HASSAN VS IQBAL HASSAN
12—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 2—Money decree-Non-fixation of court-fee—Effect—Suit filed by plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,20,000 was decreed in his favour and defendants assailed judgment and decree before Lower Appellate Court, without affixing court fee, which was dismissed—Validity—It was a decree for recovery of amount of Rs.2,20,000 and defendants should have known that appeal required affixation of court fee of an amount of Rs.15, 000 but contumaciously on such appeal, court fee was not paid—Defendants were directed to make up deficiency in payment of court fee and they themselves or their counsel should have verified and abreast the order, despite specific order court fee was not paid—High Court observed that it was ridiculous and misconceived to state that defendants for long did not get in touch with their counsel or themselves sought information about the fate of their appeal, which had already been dismissed and if defendants were indolent and negligent in that behalf, it was they who should be blamed—No case was made out by defendants for interference of High Court in revisional jurisdiction—Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
2007 CLC 1657 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ASIF NASRULLAH KHAN (MINOR) VS HAYAT KHATOON
–S. 42—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss.4, 6, 12 & 28—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.149—Declaration of title—Principal and attorney, relationship—Deficiency and recovery of court-fee—Principles—Plaintiff an illiterate and Pardahnashin
2006 CLC 286 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL HAQUE VS SUKHIAL
—Ss. 115 & 12(2)—West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), Ss.18 & 2(h)—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Art.12—Revision—Scope—Order passed on application under S.12(2), C.P.C.—Payment of court fee—Both the High Courts and the Dist
2003 CLC 1559 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Mst. SHAHANA KHAN VS Mst. KHALIDA PARVEEN
—-Ss. 96 & 115—Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.), Chapt. XII, 8.188–ÂCourt Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.12—Non-payment of court-fee on appeal—High Court in revision proceedings detected such fact—High Court directed the Appellate Court to check its
2000 YLR 2696 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN VS FARAH NAZ
Court Fees Act 1870 —-S.12—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908). S.47—Court fee, determination of–Jurisdiction of Executing Court–Determination of question of court fee by Executing Court—Scope—Legality—All questions relating to court fee are to be deal with by the Trial Court or the Court hearing appeal, revision or reference—Executing Court has to execute the decree as the same has been passed—Execution of decree cannot be refused by the Executing Court on the ground that the plaint in the suit in which the decree had been passed was deficiently stamped.
1994 CLC 461 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM GHAUS VS GHULAM MURTAZA
O.XLI, R.1—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 7(iv)(a) & 12(2)—Rejection of memorandum of appeal on account of deficiency in court-fee—Validity—Without a prior determination of precise amount of court-fee payable on document, be it a plaint or memorandum of appeal, and allowing opportunity for making good the discovered deficiency in court-fee, such document could not be rejected—Trial Court also had given no decision about the amount of court-fee payable on plaint, though it was found to be deficient—Plaintiff in terms of S.7(iv)(a), Court Fees Act, 1870 was obliged to pay court-fee on plaint, according to the value of the property which trial Court was obliged to determine—Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court were set aside and case was remanded for determination of amount of court-fee payable on memorandum of appeal and allowing opportunity to plaintiff to make good deficiency in court-fee by specified time—In default of payment of required amount of court-fee, law would take its own course while in event of payment of court-fee appeal would be decided on merit—Plaint in suit being also deficiently stamped, such matter would also be examined in the light of S.12(2), Court Fees Act, 1870, by Court below.
1994 CLC 365 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL VS MUKHTAR AHMAD
107(2)—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 12—Deficit court-fee–Payment of—Direction of Appellate Court asking payment of deficit court-fee had been challenged contending that Court could not have ordered for deposit of deficit court-fee for saving suit from dismissal—Contention was repelled holding that Court was sufficiently invested with jurisdiction to direct such payment under S.12(ii) of Court Fees Act, 1870 and that S.107(2), C.P.C. had given Appellate Court same powers and duties as were conferred and imposed on Court of original jurisdiction in respect of suit instituted before it—Powers of Appellate Court were co-extensive with powers of Trial Court and Appellate Court could also determine amount of court-fee payable on a document and call for its payment—Without allowing an opportunity for meeting fiscal liability, plaint or appeal, as the case may be, could not be rejected by Court.
1993 PLD 88 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS MASOODA HASSAN
12 & Art.152 — Appellants moving application for obtaining requisite copies of judgment and decree after expiry of limitation period — Appeal file against such judgment and decree could not be considered to be with limitation.–[Limitation].
1991 CLC 640 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MANZOOR HUSSAIN VS BHOLE KHAN
Court Fees Act 1870 S. 12(ii) — Object and scope of Court Fees Act, 1870 — Party paying deficient court-fee — Duty of Court — Court Fees Act, 1870 was enacted merely to collect revenues for the benefit of the State, object whereof was -not to arm a contesting party with a weapon of defence to obstruct trial of an action — Where court-fee paid on plaint or memorandum of appeal was deficient, Court had ample powers to call upon defaulting party to make good deficient court-fee — Appellate Court had duty to see that proper court-fee was paid not only in regard to proceedings before it but also with regard to proceedings in the lower Court.
1989 MLD 234 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TAJ DIN VS MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
—S.21–Civil Procedure Code (V of 19(18), O.VII, Rr. 1(i) & 11(b)(c)–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.12–Suit for pre-empt ion–Issue regarding valuation for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction though was framed by Trial Court, but was nether dec
1989 MLD 233 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NUSRAT VS MUHAMMAD BASHIR ALVI
Court Fees Act 1870 —S.12–Issue of court-fee–Petitioner/defendant contended that issue regarding court-fee payable .on amended suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs, should be decided first as a preliminary issue before entering into merits of case—Evidence of both parties on issues of merits had already been concluded and case was fixed for defendant’s evidence on issue of court-fee–High Court directed Trial Court to take defendant’s evidence on issue of court-tee and thereafter proceed to decide the whole suit.
1988 MLD 1613 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD SHAMIM SIDDIQUI VS Mrs. KAUSAR AZIZ
Court Fees Act 1870 —S.12–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.23 & S.115–Valuation of suit, for purpose of jurisdiction, by plaintiff–Effect on determining value of property in suit–Order of remand by Appellate Court for determining value of subject-matter–Validity of–Mere fact that plaintiff valued suit for purpose of jurisdiction at specified amount would neither bind the Court, nor would it determine value of property–Court has got ample powers to determine question of valuation, and after such determination, if value of subject-matter was found to be in excess of jurisdiction of Court, plaint would be returned to plaintiff for presentation before the Court having jurisdiction–Decision of Civil Court in accepting offer of defendant to pay value of goods on valuation fixed for purpose of jurisdiction was hasty and without application of judicial mind–Finding of Appellate Court in setting aside order of Trial Court and ordering re-trial of case was neither illegal nor suffered from infirmity.
1986 SCMR 1272 SUPREME-COURT
ALLAH RAKHA VS BOOTA KHAN
—Art. 185(2)–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11–Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), Ss. 21 & 30–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 6 & 12–Court-fee, deficiency of–Suit for pre-emption, under valued–Dismissed as time-barred for non-paym
1986 MLD 716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KARAM DIN VS IMAM DIN
Court Fees Act 1870 —S. 12–Court-fee–Question of–A matter between Court and plaintiff–Once a finding has been given by Trial Court that would be final between parties.
1985 SCMR 813 SUPREME-COURT
PAKISTAN ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL CONSTRUCTORS LTD., LAHORE VS ABDUL RASHID
—Art.185(3)–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.12–Valuation of suit-Interference by appellate Court–Leave to appeal granted to consider whether appellate Court could interfere in an interlocutory appeal with valuation of suit made by plaintiff in his su
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
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. 6, 1001), 12(ii) & 28-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3-Section 6, Court Fees Act, 1870) could not be read in isolation or independently of those provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870 which relate to ascertaining proper court-fee-Certain amount of court-fee, if and when adjudged, as proper fee as was visualised by S. 6, Court Fees Act, 1870 result would follow as provided in Ss. 10(ii), 12(ii) & 28 of Court Fees Act, 1870 and not as provided in S. 3, Limitation Act, 1908Validity mentioned in Ss. 10(ii), 12(ii) & 28, Court Fees Act, 1870 was vis-a-vis fiscal requirement (and consequences) as a measure of . prosecution of lis and not regarding physical institution of a document by act of presentation –Question of limitation arises if after determining “proper” court-fee document was returned and time was allowed for fresh presentation of same (after supply, of deficiency) and same was not refiled within specific period.
1984 CLC 29 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
JAVID AHMED VS NATIONAL BANK OF. PAKISTAN
— S. 115 and Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S, 12 read with S. 7-A [as inserted by Baluchistan Finance Ordinance (IX of 1981)]Valuation of appeal for purpose of court-fee-Propriety of decision of appellate Court on question whether memorandum of appeal w
1983 PLD 27 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
SHAMSHAD VS Mian ABDUR REHMAN
— S. 12(2) read with N.-W. F. P. Tenancy Act (XXV of 1950), S. 49, Second Group-Deficiency in court-fee-Order of trial Court creating confusion as to amount on which court-fee was to be paid-Order of appellate Court holding that default in payment of pr
1982 PLD 305 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM RASUL VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE
Art. 199 read with West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XV of 1964), Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, r. 1 and Court Fees Act -(VII of 1870), Ss. 6, 7, 12 & 28 and Scbed.1, Art. 1-Appeal-Courtfee-Insufficiently stamped appeal under Family Courts Act admitted to hearing and decided by District Judge–Notwithstanding fact that objection with regard to its being insufficiently stamped not taken at initial stage or at hearing, such appeal could not be decided unless deficiency in court-fee made up-Question whether there was proper appeal before District Judge and effect of judgment delivered in an insufficiently stamped appeal-Held, can be determined in proceedings under Art. 199 of Constitution-Judgment and decree passed on insufficiently stamped appeal-Held, illegal and without jurisdiction-Case remanded for fresh decision according to law with direction to grant time, in interest of justice, to appellant to make up deficiency in payment of court-fee.
1981 PLD 371 SUPREME-COURT
FATEH MUHAMMAD VS ABDUL GHANI
12-Deficiency in court-fee–Allowing of time to make up–Trial Court granting extensions of time to plaintiff but plaintiff negligent and contumacious in not bothering to make up deficiency-Petitioner never making any application requesting for extension of time for such purpose-Trial Court, in circumstances, held, justified in dismissing petitioner’s suit: [Court-fee].
1981 PLD 286 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM RASUL VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
12-Court-fee-Court trying suit or hearing an appeal has jurisdiction to determine amount of fee chargeable on plaint or memorandum of appeal-Objection with regard to insufficiency of court fee-To be taken up at earliest possible moment-Plaint or appeal’ admitted to regular hearing in spite of deficiency in payment of court-fee-Not to be. dismissed in haste.-[Plaint-Appeal (civil)].
1980 CLC 721 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS MUHAMMAD HANIF
— S. 12 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, r. 11Court-fees, determination of-Default in depositing deficient court-fee, effect of–Deficiency in court-fee made up with 2 days’ delay but no exception taken to it by appellant nor Court mad
1979 CLC 578 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SANA ULLAH VS MUHAMMAD AKHTAR
12 read with Suit Valuation Act (VII of 1887)-Valuation for purpose of court-fee distinct from one for purpose of jurisdiction. [Court-fee]
1978 PLD 458 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ISHAQ VS LAND ACQUISTION COLLECTOR, LAHORE
149 read with High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. V, Chap. 3-B, rr. 1 to 4 and Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 12(2)Court-fee. deficiency of-Power to make-up-Single Judge ordering making up deficiency although appeal falling within competence of Division Bench-Held i Order may not be in accordance with Rules framed by High Court but no litigant has vested right in procedure prescribed by High Court Rules and order not challengeable on such account.
1978 PLD 1139 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MALIK MUHAMMAD SAMAD ISHAQ VS LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR
149 read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 12(2) and High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. V, Chap: 3, rr. 1 to 4-Vested right in procedure-Contention that value of subject-matter of appeal being more than fifty thousand rupees same fell within competence of Division Bench and Single Judge could not order for making up deficiency in court-fee nor could extension be granted for payment of fee-Held : Order of Single Judge even if not in accordance with rules framed by High Court, no litigant has vested right in procedure prescribed by High Court Rules nor can same be challenged on that account.
1973 PLD 653 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HAJI GUL VS MST. AISHA
Court Fees Act 1870 —-S. 12(ii)-Court- fee paid on Plaint deficient-Appellate Court has ample powers to order deficiency to be made good-Question whether matter of court fee was decided by lower Court or not-Immaterial.
1972 PLD 177 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
IN RE : MST. ZEB HAMIM KHAN VS IN RE : MST. ZEB HAMIM KHAN
—- Second Sched., r. 6–Succession certificate granted under r. 6 Court-fee, under Art. 12, First Sched., Court Fees Act, 1870, cannot be charged-Certificate granted under Act IX of 1966 not same as provided by Succession Certificate Act, 1889-Court Fee
1971 PLD 920 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
VS
Court Fees Act 1870 S. 12 read with Second Sched., Art. 17(vi)-Suit for partition and possession-Court fee on memorandum of appeal from order of trial Court-Conclusion of trial Court that plaint’s valuation of suit for purposes of court fee was erroneous-Held, neither unimpeachable nor plaintiff constrained to value his appeal in accordance with finding of trial Court.
1970 PLD 428 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HABIB ISMAIL BAJWA VS KHAWAJA GHULAM MOHY-UD-DIN
Ss. 13 & 17 read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 12, Sched. I, Art. 1-Order of Rent Controller in ejectment proceedings-Has force of a decree passed by civil Court-Appeal from .such order liable to bear ad valorem court fee under Sched. I, Art. I of Court Fees Act, 1870-Appellant directed to crake good deficiency of court fee before proceedings could start.
1965 PLD 439 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT
DAIBAKILAL BASAK VS IQBAL AHMED QURAISHI
Court Fees Act 1870 S. 12-Court at stage of determining question of court-fee-Not concerned with merits of suit or its maintainability.
1961 PLD 298 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
H. IQBAL BEGUM, JUNIOR BEGUM, KHAIRPUR AND ANOTHER VS ABDUL SAMAD
Court Fees Act 1870 Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 12 -Court-fee–Decision on question of Court-fee -Whether and when can be challenged in revision-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115.
1954 PLD 37 JUDICIAL-COMMISSIONER-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN VS MANSHA KHAN
Court Fees Act 1870 S. 12-Decision relating to category of suit, or where a wrong construction is placed on Section or Article of Act-Whether final.