Section 13 : Refund of fee paid on memorandum of appeal
2012 CLC 1878 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Syed IMDAD HUSSAIN SHAH NAQVI VS REHMAT KHAN VARDAG
13—Application for return of court-fee—Compromise between the parties after about two months of filing the suit—Contention of the plaintiff was that since the matter had been compromised between the parties and no issues had been framed as such, they were entitled for return of the court-fee, and that the suit was filed in the month of January, 2010 and was disposed of as compromised in March, 2010, therefore, the court had only consumed two months, on basis of which the plaintiff was entitled for the return of the court-fee—Validity—Suit in question was filed on 25-10-2010, whereafter notices and summonses were issued—On 27-10-2010 the bailiff’s report was returned with the endorsement that one of the defendant’s had refused to receive notice and as such bailable warrants were issued on 27-10-2010—On 29-10-2010 the plaintiff was able to obtain an order by which the court directed the Judicial Magistrate to take over possession of the containers belonging to the plaintiff, which had been allegedly unauthorizedly retained by the defendants and prepare an inventory and park the said containers in the court premises—On 8-2-2010 it was ordered that the defendants might file written statements and counter affidavits within four days with advance copy to the plaintiffs who in turn might file a copy of the rejoinder, whereafter the matter was adjourned—Plaintiff moved an urgent application on 29-2-2010, and as such the matter was heard on three subsequent dates, ending in a compromise as appearing in the order dated 4-3-2010—Court had spent its valuable time in examining the case, in hearing the arguments and in deliberation, therefore, it could not be said that the court had not consumed its valuable time—Plaintiff had achieved what he could through his prayer in the plaint—Decree in terms of the order dated 4-3-2010 was passed by the High Court whereby the rights of the parties were determined—Relevant factors which went against the contentions of the plaintiff were the initiation of the proceedings by the court, hearing of the matter and the benefit derived by the party– Application for return of court-fee was dismissed, in circumstances.
2012 MLD 1334 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FAREED ALAM VS SHIRAZ AFZAL MALIK
13—Refund of Court Fee, application for—Respondent in the appeal was never served in the appeal filed by the applicant nor any counsel was engaged by him, and no restraining order was passed by the court in favour of the applicant/appellant—Matter had been compromised between the parties pursuant to which the applicant/appellant withdrew the appeal at the initial stage—Appellant/applicant, in circumstances, was entitled to refund of the court fee, irrespective of the fact whether the provisions of S.13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 were attracted or not—Application was allowed accordingly.
2011 CLC 314 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
LIAQUAT HUSSAIN VS SAUDI AIR LINE
13—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151—Application for refund of court-fees-Scope-Plaintiff filed application under S.13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 for refund of court fees in a suit for recovery of damages on the ground that the suit was withdrawn on the basis of compromise at its initial stage—Assistant Advocate-General contested application on the ground that the suit had reached at the stage of settlement of issues and after lapse of considerable time, there was no justification to ask for the refund of court-fees-Validity-Suit was withdrawn on the basis of compromise which reached between the parties outside the court and neither the issues were settled nor any interlocutory application was filed, decided or pending in the suit—Suit was fixed first time for settlement of issues and then on second date, it was withdrawn, thereby not burdening the court to expend its valuable time in examining the case, in hearing arguments, deliberating over the judgment and then formally taking time to write it—High Court allowed application and directed the office to issue necessary certificate for refund of court fees to the plaintiff.
2010 MLD 1250 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHURSHID OIL MILLS, LAYYAH through Proprietor VS BANK OF PUNJAB through Branch Manager
S.13—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96—Withdrawal of appeal—Refund of court-fee-Appeal had been withdrawn after full satisfaction of the decree by the appellant himself on first appearance of the respondent within the time provided by the court—Court in fact endeavoured nothing on the appeal, but to provide the time to appellant to settle the matter of the decree-holder, which he did—Total amount of the court fee was allowed to be refunded, in circumstances.
2009 MLD 1290 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL MAJEED VS VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SUKKUR
S.13—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.23—Refund of court-fee—Remand of case—Scope—Contention of petitioner was that as Lower Appellate Court remanded the case to Trial Court for decision afresh after recording the evidence, therefore, court-fee affixed by him should be returned—Validity—Condition imposed by S.13 of Court Fees Act, 1870, was that matter envisaged under O.XLI, R.23 C.P.C. should be disposed of upon a preliminary point and decree was reversed in appeal by appellate Court—In case, where appellate Court thought fit, while passing order of remand, it could further direct decision on issue involved in the suit—Condition precedent by virtue of O.XLI, R.23 C.P.C. was decision of suit on preliminary point—Since judgment and decree were not passed by Trial Court on any preliminary point but the same was passed after considering each and every issue in the light of evidence available on record, therefore, provision of O.XLI, R.23 C.P.C. was not attracted—Lower Appellate Court had rightly refused to issue certificate in favour of petitioner, directing Collector to refund court-fee to petitioner—Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
2008 MLD 546 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NASEEM AHMED VS KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY
2007 YLR 1454 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM HASSAN through Representatives VS Mst. KANIZ BEGUM
—Ss.39 & 42—Court Fees Act (VII of 1970), Ss. 7(iv) (c) & 13—Suit for declaration—Registered gift deed claimed by plaintiff not binding on him—Liability of plaintiff to pay court fee on such claim—Scope—Plaintiff was not party to such deed r
2007 YLR 1358 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD HUMAYUN AKHTAR VS PAKISTAN RAILWAY through Chairman, Pakistan Railway, Islamabad
—-S. 13-Court-fee paid on memorandum of appeal—Application for refund of court Âfee—Plaint in suit for specific performance of contract filed by applicant was rejected by the Trial Court through the decree which was set aside by the High Court in a
2006 YLR 1410 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs M.B. INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., MULTAN, through Managing VS Mst. SHAHNAZ AKHTAR
–Ss.13, 14, & 15—Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), Ss. 15 & 21— Suit for preÂemption—Withdrawal of suit—Refund of court-fee-After recording evidence of plaintiff when case was being adjourned for recording of evidence of defendant, a decision
2006 CLD 1548 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Messrs SINDH SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION VS SHAHZADO KHAN
–Ss.2(a)(iii), 7(2) & 22—Sindh Small Industries and Handicraft Development Corporation Act, (XXVI of 1972)—Banking Companies Ordinance, (LVII of 1962), Ss.5(b)(c) & 27(1)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),O.VII, R.10—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870),
2005 PLD 280 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD SOHRAB KHAN—Plaintiff
VS MUMTAZ BEGUM
–O. VII, R. 11—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.13—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 12, 42 & 54—Suit for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction—Rejection of plaint—Refused of court-fee—Suit in respect of property belong
2005 CLC 688 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Messrs UNITY PAPER PRODUCTS through Partner VS Messrs BEST PRODUCTS (PVT.) LTD. through Director
—S. 13—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115—Application for refund of court-fee—Revision petition having been withdrawn and having not been heard at all on merits, High Court directed the refund of court-fees accordingly.
2004 MLD 1313 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD AAMER VS Mst. SABA NAZIR
—-Ss.5 & Sched, 14 & 19 [As amended by Family Courts (Amendment) Ordinance, (LV of 2002)], Court-fees Act (VII of 1870), S.13–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Suit for recovery of dower money—Appeal—Court-fee pay
2004 CLC 430 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
BASIT RASOOL QADIR VS FIRST GENERAL LEASING MODEL
—-S. 13—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.2-A & 37(d)—Refund of court-fee paid on memo. of appeal after withdrawal of appeal on ground .of compromise—Entitlement—No order on merits of case affecting rights of parties had been passed, when ap
2003 CLC 276 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHOKHAR VS AZIZ SONS GROUP
Court Fees Act 1870 —-S. 13—Court-fee, return of—Appeal dismissed as not pressed–Appellant sought return of court-fee affixed on memorandum of appeal on the ground that the matter was compromised between the parties out of the Court and accordingly the appeal was dismissed as not pressed–Effect—Court, in the present case, had not to apply its mind as the controversy was finalized between the parties outside the Court—High Court directed the office to issue necessary certificate authorizing the appellant to recover the amount incurred by him on payment of court-fee on memorandum of appeal—Application was allowed accordingly.
2002 CLD 1424 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. RAZIA AKRAM VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager
—-S.21—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.13—Appeal—Return of court fee affixed on memorandum of appeal—Appeal was not heard on merits and was dismissed on the ground of limitation—Appellant requested for return of court fee affixed on the appeal
2002 CLD 605 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HUSSAIN PAPER AND BOARD MILLS (PVT.)
LTD.
VS HABIB CREDIT AND EXCHANGE
BANK LIMITED
—-S.22—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.13—Withdrawal of appeal on the basis of compromise—-Prayer for refund of court fee paid on memorandum of appeal—Appeal after having been admitted for regular hearing had, not been faced for hearing and oppo
2002 YLR 1628 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Haji SHAH NAWAZ VS CHAUDHRY CORPORATION
—-S.13—Refund of court-fee —Appeal was withdrawn on the basis of compromise between the parties—Appellant sought return of court-fee —Validity—Neither the plaint was rejected nor appeal was remanded under O.XLI, 23, C. P. C., the case of the a
2002 CLC 165 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MESSRS AMIN ICE FACTORY THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
Court Fees Act 1870 —-S. 13—Appeal—Court-fee, refund of—Appeal was disposed of as withdrawn—Contention of the appellant was that the court-fee affixed on the appeal be returned—Since the appeal was not decided on merits, High Court, in accordance with the principle laid down by Supreme Court in the case titled Sh. Riaz-ud-Din v. Aqil-ur-Rehman Siddiqui reported in PLD 1993 SC 76, directed the office to issue the certificate for refund of court-fee to the appellant—Appeal was disposed of accordingly.
2001 YLR 2560 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NASIR MAHMOOD VS AISHA
—-Ss. 5 & Sched., 14 & 19—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 7(11) & 13—Suit for maintenance—Appeal—Court fee payable–Plaintiff in her suit claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2, 000 per month but the Trial Court granted maintenance at the ra
1999 YLR 1147 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FAROOQ UI HASSAN JILANI VS RAFIQUE AHMED SHAH
Court Fees Act 1870 —-S. 13—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 2A & 37(d)—Settlement having arrived at between parties out of Court, consequent to which compromise was reached and proceedings were withdrawn—Application for grant of certificate for refund of amount of court fee paid on the plaint—Trial Court, in circumstances, was not bound to examine the case and hearing arguments in connection therewith and formally writing the judgment—Refusal to grant certificate to plaintiff for refund of amount of court fee operated to defeat mandate of Constitution of Pakistan (1973) and had penalized party for approaching Court instead of assisting it to’ obtain inexpensive and speedy justice–Section 13, Court Fees Act, 1870 has to be interpreted as a sub-Constitutional legislation in a manner which could have further achieved objective and spirit of Constitution of Pakistan (1973), rather than to negate same
1999 MLD 3362 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED VS IRSHAD STEEL
—-S. 151—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 13—Court-fee, refund of—Appeal was withdrawn at very initial stage—Court was not burdened to expend its valuable time in proceedings of case—Application for refund of court-fee was allowed.
1997 CLC 761 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PAKISTAN BURMAH SHELL LTD. VS TARIQ BROTHERS
Court Fees Act 1870 S. 13—Refund of court-fee—Appeal having been accepted on a point of law and no determination of rights of parties having been made, plaintiff (appellant) was granted certificate in terms of S.13, Court Fees Act, 1870, for refund of court-fee fixed on memo. of appeal.
1995 CLC 1931 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
JAM GHULAM MUSTAFA VS MUHAMMAD LATIF
Court Fees Act 1870 S. 13—Constitution of Pakistan (1973),Arts. 2A & 37(d)—Application for refund of court-fee on withdrawal of appeal—Such appeal was admitted for regular hearing on 8-3-1994 and withdrawn on 16-5-1994—Time of Court was not wasted practically and it was at the earliest that appellant withdrew his appeal—State, under Art. 2A of the Constitution was obliged to advance and serve the ends of social justice which, inter alia, oblige it to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice in terms of Art. 37(d) of the Constitution—To require party to lis to pay court-fee in any proceeding where he had compromised his dispute outside the Court and decided to withdraw proceedings pending before Court, thereby not burdening it (Court) to expend its valuable time in examining the case, in hearing arguments in connection therewith deliberating over the judgment thereon and then informally taking time to write it—Refund of court-fee if not allowed would manifestly defeat the mandate of the Constitution for non-refund of same would penalize party for approaching the Court, instead of assisting it to obtain; inexpensive and speedy justice–Certificate authorising petitioner for recovery of specified amount incurred by him on payment of court-fee on memorandum of appeal was granted.
1995 MLD 908 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FATEH KHAN VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB
Court Fees Act 1870 —–S.13—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151—Refund of court-fees–Entitlement—Plaintiffs were specifically directed to make up deficiency of court-fee within specified period—Plaintiffs neither complied with the order of Court nor sought extension of time for doing the needful—One of the plaintiffs applying for refund of court-fee—Conduct of plaintiffs would disentitle them to such relief, therefore, in the interest of justice order of refund of court-fees would not be expedient—Refund could be directed in order to obviate injustice—Considerable unexplained delay in moving such application and application being moved by only one of the three plaintiffs were other factors for declining plaintiffs’ application for refund of court-fee—Plaintiffs’ application for refund was neither covered by S.13, Court Fees Act, 1870, nor by S. 151, Civil Procedure Code 1908 Plaintiff was thus not entitled to refund of court-fees.
1995 CLC 111 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FATEH KHAN VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB
Court Fees Act 1870 S. 13—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151 & OXLI, R.23—Refund of court-fee—Essentials—Refund of Court-fee could be ordered; where plaint was rejected by Trial Court on any of the grounds contained in Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and was ordered to be received; and when appeal was accepted and matter was remanded on any of the grounds enumerated in R. 23 of O.XLI, C.P.C.—Court-fee could also be ordered to be refunded under S. 151, C.P.C.
1994 CLC 1277 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS MUHAMMAD ASLAM
Court Fees Act 1870 S. 13—Court-fee paid on memorandum of appeal —Refund—Plaintiff/appellant was non-suited simply on ground that pronote on basis of which plaintiff had filed suit was, insufficiently stamped—High Court on appeal held that pronote was duly and sufficiently stamped; set aside judgment of Court below and remanded case to be decided afresh on merits—Suit filed by plaintiff/appellant having been dismissed by Court below without any fault on part of plaintiff/appellant, he was entitled to refund of court-fee paid by him on memorandum of appeal—Certificate authorising appellant to receive back court-fee was issued by High Court accordingly.
1993 PLD 76 SUPREME-COURT
RIAZ-UD-DIN VS AQEEL UR REHMAN SIDDIQUI
— S.13 — Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151 — Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3) — Withdrawal of appeal before High Court on basis of compromise — Plaintiff making two applications, one before Trial Court for certificate authorisin
1993 MLD 1788 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NAYYAR HUSSAIN VS MUHAMMAD SAEED
Court Fees Act 1870 —-S.13—Refund of amount of court-fee fixed tin memorandum of appeal–Entitlement—Plaintiff’s appeal having succeeded on a point of law and no determination of rights of the parties having been made, he was entitled to certificate and same was granted to him for the refund of the amount of court-fee affixed on memorandum of appeal.
1992 PLD 295 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NAZIR HUSSAIN VS REHMAT BIBI
Sched. 1, Art. 13-A — Court fees on revision — Petitioner’s suit for cancellation of agreement deed was valued at Rs.400 (Rupees four hundred) while respondent’s separate suit for specific performance of agreement was valued at Rs.90,000 (Rupees ninety thousand) — Petitioner’s suit was decreed whereupon respondent riled appeal, value whereof was fixed at Rs.400- – Respondent’s. suit was dismissed and no appeal having been filed, attained by finality — Respondents appeal against petitioner was accepted~–Petitioner filed revision against appellate decree, value whereof was fixed at Rs.400– Validity — Payment of court fee for revision was the valuation of suit filed by petitioner and not valuation of suit instituted by respondent especially when respondent also fixed valuation of appeal at Rs.400 (valuation of suit brought by plaintiff) and not at Rs.90,(W (valuation of suit riled by respondents) — No court-fee was, however, payable if valuation was Rs.400 — Objection with regard to no n-payment
1992 PLD 160 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MOHD. CHOTEY KHAN VS MODH MUNIR KHAN
13 — Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLII, R. 1 & S. 151–Application for grant of certificate for refund of court-fees stamps, paid on memo. of appeal dismissed or. preliminary point that same was barred — Court, ,however, did not consider that it could have exercised inherent jurisdiction–Appellant would, thus, be entitled to certificate for refund of court-fees stamps paid on memo of appeal.
1990 CLC 1472 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL GHANI VS MUHAMMAD SHAFI
Court Fees Act 1870 S. 13—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.23—Refund of court-fee-Â-Suit filed by plaintiff/appellant, having been dismissed, concurrently by Courts below without any fault on his part and case having been remanded to Trial Court for fresh decision, certificate was granted to appellant authorising him to receive full amount of court-fee paid by him on memorendum of second appeal—Prayer of appellant for refund of amount of court-fee paid by him on memorandum of appeal filed before first Appellate Court, was turned down.
1990 PLD 120 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
WALI MUHAMMAD VS MUHAMMAD YAR
S.13 — Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0. XLI, R.23 & S.100 — Punjab Preemption Act (I of 1913), S.15 — Pre-emption suit on the basis of being a co-sharer was dismissed by Trial Court and first Appellate Court on the solitary ground of non-fulfilment of the requirement of Talab as in Islam — High Court, in second appeal, in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Ahmad and others v. Abdul Aziz and others reported as PLD 1989 SC 711 set aside judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and remanded suit to the Trial Court with the direction to re-admit under its original numbers in the register of civil suits and proceed to determine the same in accordance ‘ with law — Suit of the appellant having been dismissed without any fault on his part and remanded to Trial Court for decision under O.XLI, R.23, C.P.C. High Court granted a certificate authorising appellant to receive. back from Collector concerned full amount of court-fee paid on the memorandum of second appeal —
1988 PLD 24 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NABI BUX KHAN BHURGARI VS N. B. P.
13 ??? Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0. XLI, R. 23??Grant of certificate to receive back full amount of court?fees paid on memorandum of appeal?? Requirements?? On remand of suit in appeal on any of the grounds under 0. XLT, R. 23, C.P.C. for a second decision by the lower Court, Appellate Court, held, could grant to appellant a certificate, authorizing him to receive ?back from Collector, full amount of court?fees paid on memorandum of appeal?? Such remand as envisaged in O.XLI, R.23, C.P.C. could, however, be made in appeal if suit was disposed of by Trial Court upon preliminary point and decree was reversed in appeal?? Where such judgment in appeal was based on merits after deciding issues though same was ex parte after filing of written statement, provisions of S.13, Court Fees Act could not be pressed into service for entitlement to court?fees paid on memorandum of appeal.
1987 MLD 338 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Haji MUHAMMAD SHAFI VS MUHAMMAD ARSHAD
–S.96–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.13–Dismissal of suit as time-barred and rejection of plaint on erroneous view of law–Effect–Where suit of pre-emptor was dismissed on account of deficiency of court-fee without requiring plaintiff to make up same
1987 CLC 530 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
YAQOOB VS ANWAR HUSSAIN
Court Fees Act 1870 —Ss. 13, 14 & 15–Appeal withdrawn and having become infructuous-Certificate of refund of court fees paid in this behalf, directed to be issued.
1981 CLC 1323 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AKHTAR HUSSAIN VS MUHAMMAD TAHIR ALAM
151 read with Court Fees Act (VII of 18-70), Ss. 13, 1.4 & 15-Excess court-fee, refund of—Inherent jurisdiction-Ex debito justitiae declaration — Appellant inadvertently paying excess court-fee on appeal-Held, in such circumstances Court can in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, in interest of justice, grant declaration as to memorandum of appeal being overvalued and leave party concerned to apply to revenue authorities for refund.
1980 CLC 1775 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HASHAM & CO VS INDUS ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
— S. 13= –Court-fee, refund certificate for.-Court not empowered to directly order Government to refund amount of excess court-fee Court issues certificates to such effect to enable party to apply to Revenue Authority for refund of excess court-fee paid
1978 PLD 19 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MUHAMMAD JAN VS FAZAL AHMAD
—-O. XLI, r. 23 read with S. 151, O. XLIII, r. 1(u) and Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S 13-Remand-Suo motu revision-Contention that order of remand being appealable and no appeal having been preferred order became final and sue motu revision not compete
1978 PLD 375 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
BRITISH INDIA ENGINEERING WORKS, KARACHI VS GLOBE NAVIGATION LTD.
151 read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 13, 14 & 15Court-fee, refund of-Court not empowered to order under any specific provision of Court Fees Act, 1870-Court may however go into such question, ex debito justitae, declare any particular plaint or memo. of appeal being overvalued, and then leave matter to Revenue authorities for grant of refund in accordance with declaration given by High Court.-[Court-fee)
1977 PLD 105 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RIAZ AHMAD VS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL
13 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI. rr. 23 do 23-A-Refund of fee-Suit not decreed on preliminary points lost decree awarded on merits and same reversed under O. XLI, r. ?3-A, C. P. C.-Section 13, Court Fees Act, held, not applicable to such case.
1976 PLD 1320 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RIAZ AHMAD VS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL
Court Fees Act 1870 —-S. 13-Refund of fee-Suit not decreed on preliminary points but on merits-Decree reversed under r. 23-A and not r. 23 of O. XLI, C. P. C.-Section 13 not applicable to such case-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, rr. 23 & 23-A.
1976 PLD 1268 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
BHOLA VS SARDAR MUHAMMAD
— Ss. 13, 14 & 15 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 37(d)-Court-fee, refund of-Proceedings in appeal not gone beyond stage of admission-High Court in its inherent jurisdiction can order refund of court-fees on appeal being withdrawn-Provisi
1975 PLD 178 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TRADEWELL (PAKISTAN) CORPORATION VS STANDARD BANK LTD.
Ss. 13, 14 & 15 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151-Refund of court-fees-Levy of court-fees, if sanctioned by statute and paid, cannot be ordered by Court to be refunded (whether or not proceedings heard on merit) unless law expressly allows such refund Inherent jurisdiction under S. 151 can be invoked only where court fees not payable or has been paid (or called upon by Court to be paid) under mistake.
1973 PLD 206 SUPREME-COURT
HOSHANG VS EDDIE P. BHARUCHA
13 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, r. 23—Remand of case by appellate Court Refund of court fee paid on memorandum of appeal-Trial Court disposing of suit as not maintainable upon a “preliminary point” without going into merits of case and without deciding other its issues Appeilate suit as maintainable and remanding case to trial Court for a fresh decision on all issues save issue on preliminary point. Appellant, in circumstance, entitled in terms of S. 13, Court Fees Act to obtain certificate from appellate court for refund of court fee paid on memorandum of appeal-Words “preliminary point” in r. 23, O. XLI, C. P. C. Meaning.
1958 PLD 44 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
BHOLLA VS NOOR HUSSAIN
Court Fees Act 1870 Sch. 1, Art. 13-Not applicable in Azad Jammu and Kashmir-Revision petitions governed by Sch. II Art. 1, cl. (d).
1952 PLD 219 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MEHRAJ DIN VS MST. RAFIA BEGUM
—-S. 114 illus. (e) Provincial Act (amending a Central Act) assented to both by Provincial Governor and Governor- General–May be presumed to have satisfied requirements of S. 80-A (2) of Government of India Act, 1915 as embodied in the Act of 1919, wit