Section 4 : Fees on documents filed, etc., in High Courts in their extraordinary jurisdiction
2020 PLD 736 SUPREME-COURT
ASAD ALI VS The BANK OF PUNJAB
Ss.3 & 5—Court-fees Act (VII of 1870), Chap. II (Ss.3 to 5)—High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. 5, Chap. I, Judicial Business, Pt. A (a), Rr. 1(a)(iii) & (v) & 9(i)(d) & (e)—Appeal, filing of—Deficiency—Office objection that court fee and revenue stamps were deficient—If deficiency was pointed out by the office in respect of court fee and time was granted for making good the deficiency but the party failed to make good the deficiency within the time specified by the office, question of limitation might then arise and discretion to extend further time would be refused if the conduct of the appellant was considered to be contumacious and the appeal would be rejected.
2017 PLD 207 SUPREME-COURT
PROVINCE OF SINDH VS Haji RAZZAQ
Ss. 3, 4 & 6—Sindh Courts Act (VII of 1926) [since repealed], S.8—High Court of West Pakistan (Establishment) Order (XIX of 1955), Art.5—High Court Establishment Order (P.O. 8 of 1970), Art.3(1)(c)—Balochistan and Sindh (High Courts) Order (P.O. No. 6 of 1976), Art.3(b)—Establishment of West Pakistan Act (XIX of 1955), S.10(1)—Payment of court fee on suits on the original side of the former High Court of West Pakistan (Karachi Bench) now Sindh High Court, and on appeals against the judgments and orders passed on the original side of that High Court—Original civil jurisdiction of Karachi Bench of the West Pakistan High Court was special jurisdiction and not ‘ordinary civil jurisdiction’ within the scope of S. 4 of the Court Fees Act, 1870—Court-fee was payable on an appeal from a Single Judge of the Karachi Bench of the West Pakistan High Court inasmuch as the earlier position was continued intact by virtue of S.10(1) of Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955—Court fees which were levied in the Chief Court of Sindh on appeal continued to be levied on appeal from suits on the original side of the Sindh High Court—View taken by Waheeduddin Ahmed, J., in Firdous Trading Corporation v. Japan Cotton and General Trading Co. Ltd. (PLD 1961 Karachi 565) as to the payment of court fee under the Court Fees Act, 1870 on suits filed in the original side of the former High Court of West Pakistan (Karachi Bench), now Sindh High Court, and on appeals against the judgments and orders passed on the original side of that High Court stated the correct position of law.
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.
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
2005 CLC 1969 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAKISTAN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES HOUSING SOCIETY VS Messrs M.A. KHAN & CO.
—-S. 4—High Court appeal—Insufficiency of court-fee paid by the appellant—Held, in terms of relevant provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870 the appellant was required to make payment of court-fee on ad valorem basis according to the value of subject-m
2003 CLC 1559 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Mst. SHAHANA KHAN VS Mst. KHALIDA PARVEEN
?
1999 MLD 985 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AMIR BEGUM VS MANZOOR AHMAD
—-O.VII, R.11—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.4(a) —Value of suit for purpose of court-fee assessed by the appellant/plaintiff had been changed by Trial Court—Effect—Where the valuation of the suit fixed by the plaintiff had been changed by Tria
1994 MLD 1210 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS MUHAMMAD AKRAM
Court Fees Act 1870 —-Ss.4 & 6—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.199, 203 & 203-A–Jurisdiction of High Court—Legality and vires of orders passed by Courts below directing payment of court-fees were challenged on the ground that provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870, requiring payment of court-fee on pleadings in suit as also on memorandum of appeal having been declared to be against Injunctions of Islam by Federal Shariat Court in Mahmood-ur-Rehman Faisal’s case PLD 1992 FSC 195(1), orders in question, were illegal and without jurisdiction and the relevant law being un-Islamic had ceased to remain in force—Validity—Effect of judgment of Federal Shariat Court having been suspended by the Appellate Shariat Bench of Supreme Court provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870, were still on the statute book—Orders passed by Courts below requiring payment of court-fee on suit and memorandum of appeal could not be deemed to be illegal and thus, could not be set aside in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
1992 PLD 195 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT
MAHMOOD-UR-RAHMAN FAISAL VS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD
—-Ss. 4, 6, 7 & 35 read with Scheds. I & II; Punjab Finance Act (XIV of 1973), S.8 read with Scheds. IV & V; Cut Fees (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance (XIV of 1981), S.2 further amending Art. 13 of Sched.II of Court Fees Act, 1870; Sindh Finance Act (IV of
1990 SCMR 1723 SUPREME-COURT
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS GHAZANFAR AHMAD BAJWA
—-O. VII, R. 11(b) & (c) read with S.107(2)—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.4—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Dismissal of appeal due to deficient Court-fee—Appellate Court did not allow at least one opportunity to appellant to make
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 CLC 2871 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS HAFIZUDDIN
—O.VII, r.11 8 Ss. 149 & 96–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 4 & 6–Deficient court-fee, payment of–Limitation–Discretion of Court to extend time–Exercise of discretion by Court, held, should be on judicial principles based on certain facts which s
1983 CLC 2594 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MAQSOOD AHMAD KHAN VS D. B. AVARI
Ss. 4 & 6 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 149 and O. XXXIII, rr. 1 &. 2-Court-fee, when time extended for payment-Computation of-Application made in 1967 to sue as pauper refused-On application dated 12th September, 1970 plaintiff granted on 7th October., 1974 one month to pay court-fee subject . to all just exceptions –.Applicant paying court-‘fee at rate prevailing under taw as it stood in 1967-Held,, court–fee paid at scale chargeable on date of institution of application under O. XXXIII, rr. I & 2 proper subject to decision of Court as to when proceedings of suit to be deemed commenced and court-fee would- be payable according to law then prevalent-Quaerre, when plaint in such case deemed to have been instituted.
1983 CLC 2544 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
UNITED CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
4-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, r. 11 Court fee-Deficiency-Plaintiff failing to make up deficiency in court-fee within time allowed by Court-Suit dismissed in circumstances.
1981 CLC 1148 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARACHI
149 read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 4 -Deficit courtfee-Party in default-Held : Not entitled to exercise of discretion under S. 149, C. P. C.
1980 CLC 1124 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
MUHAMMAD BOOTA VS FARZAND ALI
— S. 149 & O. VII, r. 11 read with Court Fees Act ( VII of 1870), S. 4-Plaint or document insufficiently stamped-Grant of time to make up deficiency-Combined effect of O. VII, r. 11 and S. 149, C. P. C.-Court must first grant time to make up deficiency
1975 PLD 944 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
RAZAK VS USMAN
Ss. 3, 4 & 6-Court-fee, levy of-Expression “Court hereinbefore mentioned” in S.6-Refers to Courts specified in S. 3, i.e., High Courts and draws distinction between High Courts and subordinate Courts-Court-fees on suits and appeals in subordinate Courts-To be paid under S. 6 at rates prescribed in Schedules-Court-fees on suits and appeals in High Courts-Governed by S. 3 only, appeals falling under S. 4, cl. 3.
1974 SCMR 364 SUPREME-COURT
HASSAN BAKHSH VS AFZAL SHAH
— Ss. 4 & 28 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 149 & 151-Court-fee-Opportunity to make up deficiency-Petitioners failing to make up deficiency in court-fee although given three opportunities to do so-Valuable right having in meantime accrue
1970 PLD 295 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
H. S. FELDMAN VS THE PROVINCE OF EAST BENGAL
149 read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 4 & 6-Deficit court-fee-Permission for payment of Cannot be claimed as a matter of right-Discretion of Court-Not to be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously but judicially and with utmost care-Mere poverty, ignorance or inability to pay full court fee at time of presenting appeal-Not sufficient grounds-Appeal returned for want of full court-fee Appellant sleeping over far 8 months and then representing appeal but still without making up deficiency and praying under S. 149, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for permission to pay deficit court fee without mentioning sufficient grounds-Appellant, however, subsequently urging poverty and wrong advice of Advocate as grounds for non-payment of full court-fee-Appellant, in circumstances, held, not entitled to exercise of discretion tinder S. 149, Civil Procedure Code, 1903.
1968 PLD 171 SUPREME-COURT
AHMAD KHAN VS CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT, WEST PAKISTAN
, Art. 98 read with Arts. 101, 131 & 132-Court-fee chargeable on writ petition-Raised by High Court from Rs. S to Rs. 100 by amending rule purporting to have been made under cl. 27, Letters Patent (Lahore) and Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Third Sched., Part II, para. J-Amendment, held, intra vires-Imposition of fees, where no provision is made in Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), necessary part of regulatory process applicable to motions made before Court, in view of provisions of cis. 9 & 27, Letters Patent (Lahore)-High Court s power to regulate practice of Court includes power to fix court fees where no fee has been fixed-Writ jurisdiction is “original” jurisdiction and not “extraordinary original jurisdiction”; must be termed as “constitutional jurisdiction”-Letters Patent (Lahore), cls 9, 24 & 25 read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 4-“Extraordinary original civil jurisdiction” of High Court-Use of words “extraordinary original civil jurisdiction” in S. 4, Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), is apt to ca
1967 PLD 1030 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AHMAD KHAN VS MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE
(c) High Court Rules and Orders (Lahore), Vol. V, Chap. 4-J r.10 read with Letters Patent (Lahore), cl. 27-Rule-making powers of High Court-History, scope and extent-Amendment made by High Court in r. 10, Chap. 4-J, Vol. V, High Court Rules and Orders (vide Correction Slip No. 175, dated 13-4-66) prescribing court fee for petitions under Art. 98, Constitution of Pakistan (1962)-Held, intra vires and legal-Government of India Act, 1915, Ss. 106 & 107-Government of India Act, 1935, Ss 223 & 224-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 101-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 237-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 4.
1966 PLD 51 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MST. NIAZ BEGUM VS ZARI JAN AND OTHERS
149-Court fey deficiency due to bona fide mistake of counsel unaware of change, in law-No dishonest intention proved-Opportunity to make good deficiency allowed-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 4 & Sch. I item 13A-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115 read with Court Fees (Amendment) Ordinance (LII of 1962), S. 5.
1961 PLD 565 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FIRDOUS TRADING CORPORATION AND OTHERS VS JAPAN COTTON & GENERAL TRADING CO. LTD.
Court Fees Act 1870 Ss. 3, 4, 6 read with High Court of West Pakistan (Establishment) Order (XIX of 1955), para. 5, and Karachi Courts Order (II of 1956), Sched. Part A, para. 7(4)-Original civil jurisdiction of Karachi Bench of West Pakistan High Court-Not “ordinary original civil jurisdiction” within scope of S. 4, Court Fees. Act, 1870-Jurisdiction of “special nature”-Bench exercising jurisdiction as “principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in civil district of Karachi”-Letters Patent Appeal from judgment of one Judge of Karachi Bench-Not exempt from Courtfees-Letters Patent (Lahore), cl. 10-Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955, S. 10 (1).