Section 5 : Procedure in case of difference as to necessity or amount of fee
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 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.
1991 CLC 1655 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SAKHI MUHAMMAD VS HAKIM ALI
Court Fees Act 1870 —-Ss. 5, 7 (v 1, 9 and 10 (ii)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100—Second appeal—Deficiency in court-fee—Making up of—Second appeal before High Court was filed by paying court-fee worth Rs.15 only on memorandum of appeal, which was objected to by the office—Objection of office about value of court-fee was upheld by Registrar who in his capacity as Taxing Officer directed appellant to pay court-fee on the value of subject-matter of appeal within thirty days–Appellant who admittedly failed to comply with the order of Taxing Officer, challenged that order first before High court and then before Supreme Court, but failed and Supreme Court dismissing leave to appeal of appellant did not suspend operation of order of Taxing Officer—During pendency of such proceedings, appellant made up deficiency in court fee, but much beyond period of thirty days prescribed by Taxing Officer —On preliminary objection raised by respondent to the effect that Court-fee paid by appellant on memo of appeal beyond period of thirty days prescribed by Taxing Officer, was of no consequence appellant contended that Taxing Officer not being Court, was not competent to give obligatory adjournment to enable appellant to make up deficiency in court-fee and that obligatory adjournment having not been granted by any Judge appeal could not be dismissed merely because appellant failed to comply with directions of Taxing Officer —Provision of Chapter II, Court Fees Act, 1870 which deals with the fees in the High courts did not enjoin adjournment of case for enabling party to pay court-fee—Order of Taxing Officer which was passed under S.5 of the Act was final and could not ordinarily be upset even by Court and party concerned had to comply with the same—Appellants having failed to avail even grace period allowed to them by Taxing Officer, though stricto senso the same was not supported by any provision of law, memo of appeal was rejected in circumstances.
1987 MLD 70 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Rana M. YASIN VS MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN
Court Fees Act 1870 —Art.5–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLVII, R.1–Review application–Requisite Court-fee–Review application, held, was required to be stamped with half of – Court-fee determined by Trial Court as leviable on plaint-Where review application was deficient of Court-fee, opportunity to make up same was to be afforded to defaulting part before penalising him–High Court directed petitioner to make good deficiency in court-fee by a specified date failing which same was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
1966 PLD 753 SUPREME-COURT
MRS. MOMTAZ MALLIK VS TAXING OFFICER
Court Fees Act 1870 S. 5 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Arts. 91, 98(5) & 242-“Taxing Officer” a “statutory persona designata nominated by Chief Justice-High Court has no supervisory jurisdiction or administrative control over Taxing Officer-“Taxing Officer” not a Court-Not an officer to whom High Court delegates any of its functions-Registrar acting as Taxing Officer is not High Court itself within meaning of Art. 98(5), Constitution of Pakistan (1962)-Petition under Art. 98 against decision of Registrar as Taxing Officer maintainable-High Court (Dacca) Rules and Orders (Appellate Side), O. III, r. 1.
1966 PLD 42 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS MESSRS MUHAMMAD ALI SHAIKH ISMAILJI & SORTS
Court Fees Act 1870 S. 5-Reference by Taxing Officer-.Shall be either to “Chief Justice of High Court” or to “Judge of the High Court as the Chief Justice shall appoint either generally or specially in this behalf”-Judge not so appointed but otherwise competent to dispose of matter-Held, in circumstances of case, competent to decide reference made direct to him.