Section 6 : Fees on documents filed, etc., in mufassal Courts or in public offices
2018 MLD 2070 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Malik ALLAH YAR VS Mst. NAZRAN KHATOON
Ss. 6 & 28—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII R. 11—Court fee, determination of—Deficiency in court-fee—Rejection of plaint on ground of deficiency in court-fee—Scope—Plaint or any other document without proper court-fee stamp was not of any validity unless and until the same was properly stamped—Where plaint was written upon insufficiently stamped paper, the court was duty bound to first determine the exact amount of court-fee payable, and secondly, to afford plaintiff opportunity to make good for its deficiency and thirdly to take further steps in a suit after getting requisite stamp paper of the court-fee—Court to reject plaint under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. for non-payment of court-fee, was to first positively and specifically determine amount of deficit court-fee and secondly allow reasonable time to plaintiff to make-up for the same.
2018 MLD 2054 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NAZIR AHMAD BHATTI VS M. YOUNAS
Ss. 10, 6 & 28—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11—Court-fee, determination of—Rejection of plaint on ground of insufficient court-fee—Scope—Plaint or memo. of appeal could not be rejected or dismissed on account of being deficiently stamped unless amount of court fee payable on the same was first determined with exactitude and an opportunity was allowed to the party to pay the deficit amount—Court, on examination of a plaint, if the court found that relief claimed was undervalued, then it was to require the plaintiff to correct valuation within a time fixed by the court, and if plaintiff failed to comply, then the plaint should be rejected under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.—Matter of court fee if required investigation, then the court was to record evidence of the parties bearing on such point of court-fee and if it was found the court-fee was insufficient, then court should stay further proceedings in the suit and require plaintiff to make good the deficiency —Where a court recorded findings on all issues and while dismissing suit on merits also required that court-fee should be paid by plaintiff, in such a case, the said procedure would not be justified.
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Ss. 3, 4 & 6—Sindh Courts Act (VII of 1926) [since repealed], S.8—High Court of West Pakistan (Establishment) Order (XIX of 1955), Art.5—High Court Establishment Order (P.O. 8 of 1970), Art.3(1)(c)—Balochistan and Sindh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.
2010 PLD 197 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD FIAZ VS Ch. YAQOOB HUSSAIN
Ss.6, 10 & 28—Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), Ss.11—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.148, 149, 151 & O. VII, R.11—Plaint or appeal deficiently stamped—Validity–Policy of law not being to penalize a litigant oil account of deficiency of court-fee-Court Fees Act, 1870 not meant to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality against his opponent, but to secure revenue for the State—Plaint presented within limitation period could not be said to be time-barred merely on account of being deficiently stamped—Court could not dismiss suit or appeal without first specifying deficiency in court fee and giving time for making up such deficiency—Deficiency in court-fee could also be made good under S.151, C.P.C.—On compliance of such order, plaint or appeal would have some force and effect as if court fee had been paid in first instance—Conditional order or decree could also be made to effect that failure to supply proper court fee within a time allowed would result in dismissal of suit or rejection of plaint–Principles.
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
2007 PLD 1 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN VS SAID HUSSAIN KHAN
–Ss. 6, 10 & 28—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 149 & O.VII, R.11—Deficiency in court-fee—Where the Court found that plaint was not properly stamped, then the proper course would be to pass an order under S.10 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 direc
2004 YLR 974 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUSHTAQ AHMAD SHAH VS NASEEB KHAN
—-S. 24—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 2 (2) & 91—Court Fee Act (VII of 1870), S. 6 & Sched. I, Art. 1—Dismissal of suit on failure to deposit 1/3rd of sale price within time fixed by Court—Appeal against such dismissal order—Non paymen
2003 CLC 1658 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
IBRAHIM SAID VS ZAHID SHAH
—-S. 96 & O.XLI, R.1—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss.6 & 28–ÂAppeal against original decree—Affixation of court-fee on memo. of appeal—One of the grounds on which appeal was dismissed was that appellant had failed to affix court-fee on memo. of
2003 CLC 1559 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Mst. SHAHANA KHAN VS Mst. KHALIDA PARVEEN
#NAME?
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.
1989 SCMR 1791 SUPREME-COURT
ALLAH BAKHSH VS MUHAMMAD SHARIF
—S.6–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)–Court-fee–Neither any objection as to deficiency in the payment of court-fee was raised by the office nor by the Court when the appeal was admitted–Fact of deficiency in paying court-fee was brought
1988 CLC 1645 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HAMEEDA BEGUM VS FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
7(1), (2) & Sched. I, Art. 1–West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.19–Plaint in suit for maintenance–Court-fee payable on such plaint, and on memorandum of appeal–Effect of S.19 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act on court-fee to be payable on plaint stated.
1987 SCMR 1883 SUPREME-COURT
ZAINAB VS NAEEM AHMAD
–S. 6–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) — Court-fee–Deficiency in–Leave to appeal granted to examine contentions that initial failure to pay proper amount of court-fee was due to erroneous entry in decree-sheet in that regard; that in any
1987 SCMR 1161 SUPREME-COURT
DAUD BAIG VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
—Ss. 14, 7 & 19–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Sched. I, Art.1 and Ss. 6, 7 & 19–AISpeal–Memorandum of appeal to be filed before District Court falls under Sched.1, Art.1, Court Fees Act, 1870 and court-fee is payable ad valorem on the subject-matter
1987 CLC 2428 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SIKANDAR DIN VS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)
Court Fees Act 1870 Ss. 6 & 28—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.3–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.1–Plaint–Court-fee–Limitation–Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115), para. 25(7)–Unless required amount of court-fee chargeable on document (which term includes plaint also) as was indicated in schedules, was not paid, it shall not be taken to be of any validity–Such rule however, does not lead to a necessary corollary that the plaint which was not adequately stamped was not a ‘proper plaint’ at all in the eyes -of law and further that for the limitation purposes suit shall be deemed to have been instituted only when proper and required court-fee was paid on it.
1987 PLD 127 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHUDA YAR VS NAWAZ KHAN
149 & O. VII, R. 11-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 6 & 10-Rejection of plaint for non-payment of court-fee-Requirement-Liability of a suit to be taken off, held, could follow only upon failure of plaintiff to supply requisite stamp paper on requisition from Court, to pay same within specified time-Where Court comes to conclusion that a plaint was to be properly stamped, proper course would be an order under S. 10, Court Fees Act, to direct payment of requisite court-fee-Such order could also be passed by Trial Court under S. 6, Court Fees Act in conjunction with S. 149 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
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
1985 SCMR 436 SUPREME-COURT
GHUNCHA GUL VS NADIR KHAN
—Art. 185(3)–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.6–Leave to appeal granted on grounds that plaint filed was not stamped and, therefore there was no valid institution of suit on 11-2-1976 by reason of S.6 Court Fees Act, 1870 and accordingly Courts below h
1985 CLC 2877 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF SHAH VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
–O. XLI, r. 1–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Sched. 1, Art. 6-Deficiency in court-fee on attached decree sheet–Making up of-For just decision and safe administration of justice first Appellate Court, held, should have granted time to petitioner for maki
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 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 PLD 383 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL GHAFOOR VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQ
6-“Court of Justice”-Meaning. [Quaere].
1983 PLD 253 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD YASIN VS WALI MUHAMMAD
22 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, r. 11 and Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 6 -Pre-emption suit Zar-e-Panjum-Court-fee, deficiency in-Trial Court failing to frame issue as to deposit of one-fifth amount and court-fee despite fact that parties at variance on face of plaint and written statement and proceeding to decide application for rejection of plaint from pleading to argument without evidence proper-Order of rejection, held, cannot be sustained as trial Court committed breach of procedural law and exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity.
1983 CLC 1256 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SIKANDAR KHAN VS SHAN MUHAMMAD
6-Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 4 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115–Court-fee-Pre-emption suit Petitioner not paying court-fee at all even after knowing price of property and receiving statement of profits and that this was not a case where court fee exempted-Conduct of petitioner, held, contumacious and grossly negligent and not bona fide.
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.
1982 PLD 305 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM RASUL VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE
VII, r. I1 & O. XLI, r. 1 read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 6 & 12-Court-fee-Jurisdiction of Court trying a suit or hearing an appeal to determine amount of fee chargeable on plaint or memorandum of appeal-Objection with regard to insufficiency of Courtfee-Held, should be taken up at earliest possible moment–Plaint or appeal admitted to regular hearing, in spite of deficiency in Court fee, should not be dismissed in haste.
1982 PLD 218 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHUDA BAKHSH VS SULTAN AHMAD
6-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 149-Court-fee, deficiency in-Extension of time, grant of-Deficiency in court-fee made good before decision of appeals but effect of filing appeals initially without proper court-fee as well as effect of making good deficiency not determined by appellate Court-Question whether appellants before lower Courts entitled to grant of extension of time also not considered-Held: Appeals could not be dealt with on merits without considering aforesaid questions and no alternative left but to remand cases to lower appellate Courts for fresh decision-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 107 (1) (b).-
[Appeal (civil)-Court-fee].
1982 CLC 2248 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE
V11, r. II (c) read with Court Fees Act (V11 of 1870), S. 6–Plaint without proper court-fee-Plaintiff dispossessed on 20th September, 1978 -Suit under S. 9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 filed without proper court-fee on 21st February, 1979-Making up of deficiency of court-fee ordered from time to time and finally of 26th May, 1979, one week’s time given but plaintiff filing court-fee on 13111 June, 1979-Held, presentation of plaint not proper in eye of law and suit became time-barred.
1981 PLD 489 SUPREME-COURT
ALLAH YAR VS MUHAMMAD RIAZ
6-Court-fee-Deficiency-Duty. . of Court-Mere – fact of defendant having not pressed question of ‘deficiency in court-fee at trial, held, does not relieve Court of obligation of looking into matter, determining correct amount of court-fee, and seeing deficiency made up.-[Court-fee]
1981 PLD 293 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD VS ALLAH DITTA
Ss. 148 & 149 read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 6Court-fee-Deficiency, making up-Enlargement of time – Memorandum of appeal insufficiently stamped-Appellant making no effort to make up deficiency within period of limitation and showing no cause for extension of time, held, appeal could be deemed to be filed only when and on day deficiency of court-fee made up.
1979 PLD 33 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
SHAHZULLAH VS SYED SHAHABUDDIN
Sched. I, Arts. 13-A & 6, and Sched. II, Art. l0-Court-fees on revision petitions, vakalatnamas, and copies of judgments-Levied under provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870.
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.
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.
1966 PLD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
M. BURQ AND ANOTHER VS CENTRAL EXCHANGE BANK LTD. AND OTHERS
Court Fees Act 1870 S. 6 read with Sch. I, Art. 1–Memorandum of appeal-Court fee-Interest pendente lite allowed or disallowed by trial Court up to date of decree-Such interest ascertainable – Ad valorem court fee to be paid for amount of interest up to the date of appeal-Appellant claiming reduction in interest awarded by trial Court-Must pay court fee on amount of reduction claimed.
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).