Section 7 Court Fee Act 1870

Section 7 : Computation of fees payable in certain suits

2002 PLD 1 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

MUHAMMAD LATIF VS AMIR-UD-DIN

—-S. 14—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7 (v)(b)—Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S. 3—Pre-emption suit—Jurisdictional value–Determination—Land was assessed to land revenue, but for some reason, the same was not recovered for being exempted

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

2001 CLC 54 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN VS RAJ BIBI

Ss. 5, Sched., 14 & 19—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(ii)–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Suit for recovery of dowery articles—Deficiency in court-fee—Suit for recovery of dowery articles by wife having been decreed, husband filed appeal against same which was dismissed on the ground that he had failed to make up deficiency in court-fee as per direction of the Appellate Court—Contention of husband was that suit for recovery of dowery being included in Sched. of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, no court-fee was required to be paid and court-fee of R.15 having been affixed on plaint as well as on memo. of appeal no further court-fee was required on memo. of appeal—Plaint was rightly stamped according to S.19 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 and provisions of S.7(ii) of Court Fees Act, 1870, which were applicable to the plaint regarding maintenance and annuities etc. were not applicable to appeal arising out of decree passed by Family Court and court-fee on memo. of appeal was to be paid according to the value of subject-matter of appeal determined on date of decree—Amount payable under decree which was subject-matter of appeal, exceeded Rs.25,000, court-fee was to be paid on decretal amount which was subject-matter of appeal—Husband having failed to make up deficiency in court-fee as per direction of the Court his appeal was rightly dismissed—Husband had prayed that if he was granted time to make up deficiency in court-fee, he would make up the deficiency–Respondent having no objection if opportunity was granted to petitioner for making up deficiency in court-fee and his appeal be decided on merits, order dismissing appeal was set aside and appeal before Appellate Court was deemed to be pending and husband was ordered to make up deficiency in specified period and to decide appeal on merits:

2001 PLD 3 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

RANA MAHMOOD AHMAD—PETITIONER VS RANA MUHAMMAD RASHID AND 3 OTHERS—RESPONDENTS

Court Fees Act 1870 —-Ss. 7(iv)(a) [as amended by Punjab Finance Act (XIV of 1973)] & 7(v)-Value of suit for the purpose of court-fee—Terms “market value” and “value of the property” as used in Ss. 7(v) & 7(iv)(a) of Court Fees Act, 1870, respectively—Connotations and distinction–Value of property for the purpose of court-fee under the amended provision is different from the term “market value” used in S.7(v) of Court Fees Act, 1870.

2001 PLD 1 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

NOOR ELAHI VS THE STATE

Court Fees Act 1870 —-S. 7—Court-fee, determination of—Factors to be taken into consideration—Allegations made by defendant—Effect—For the purpose of determination of court-fee and the question whether the suit was properly valued or not, provisions of S.7 of Court Fees Act, 1870, could be referred to which provided that the Court must confine itself to the plaint and was not required to look into the circumstances which could subsequently influence its judgment as the true value of the relief sought—In order to decide the question of court-fee in a particular suit the Court had to take into consideration the allegations made and the payers sought in the plaint and to assume the allegations to be correct—Allegations made by defendant in written statement or by means of a counter-affidavit or by any other document were not to be considered and the same were immaterial for determining the category/nature of the suit for the purpose of payment of court-fee—Payment of court-fee was to be looked at with reference to facts at the time of institution of the suit and events subsequent to the institution of the suit could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of valuation of the suit for the payment of court-fee.

2000 CLC 1680 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ABDUL JALIL VS NUSRAT BEGUM

Ss. 5 & Sched. 14 & 19???Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.9???Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(2)???Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199???Constitutional petition???Suit for maintenance???Appeal against judgments and decree of Family Court???Court?fee payable???Family Court granted decree for maintenance at the rate of rupees one thousand per month in favour of plaintiff?wife including past maintenance as well??Appellate Court, on appeal against judgment and decree of Family Court, directed appellant/husband to affix court?fee on memorandum of appeal under S_7(2) of Court Fees Act, 1876, within specified period???Appellant husband having failed to pay court?fee his appeal was dismissed???Validity??Court?fee of rupee one was to be affixed on plaint before Family Court under S.19 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. in North?West Frontier Province???Section ~19 of the said Act had specifically mentioned word “plaint” which would be deemed to have excluded memorandum of appeal??Memorandum of appeal, in circumstances, would be liable to be affixed ad valorem court?fee on subject?matter of dispute as provided by S.7 of Court Fees Act, 1870???Mode of valuation for purpose of court?fee on memorandum of appeal would be ten times the value of maintenance granted for a period of one year???Value for purpose of court?fee in the case amounted to Rs.1,20,000???Appellant/petitioner having failed to affix a required court?fee within specified period, this appeal was rightly dismissed by Appellate Court below.

2000 YLR 2404 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

IJAZUL HASSAN VS WAZIR MUHAMMAD

—-Ss. 15, 21, 25 & 27—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7 (v) & (vi)—Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S.3—Suit for pre-emption–Determination of court-fee —Plaintiff claimed superior right of pre-emption on ground of being co-sharer in suit land

2000 YLR 610 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS SHEHZAD BASHIR

—-S.7(v) &. (vi)—West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S.18—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S:.96—Appeal–Maintainability—Pecuniary jurisdiction of District Judge —Pre-emption suit–Agricultural land—Suit was valued on the bas

2000 CLC 1598 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN VS ALLAH BAKHSH

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7(iv)(f)—Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S.8—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96 & O.VII, Rr.2, 10—Suit for rendition of account–Valuation of suit for purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction of Court—Return of memorandum of appeal—Value of suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was fixed at Rs.200 in the plaint—Trial Court while passing preliminary decree had observed that suit fell under S.7(iv)(f) of Court Fees Act, 1887 and valuation as given in the plaint, though was correct, but plaintiff would be liable to court-fee on amount found due from defendant/appellant at the time of passing of final decree—Appellate Court on appeal against said preliminary decree, set aside finding of Trial Court on issue of court-fee holding that suit amount being, Rs.8,00,000 suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction should have been valued, according to suit amount and sent case to Trial Court for ordering plaintiff to make up the deficiency in court-fee—Plaintiff paid additional fee on the plaint, but when case was resubmitted to Appellate Court it r-turned memo. of appeal holding that court-fee having been fixed at Rs.8,00,000, it had no jurisdiction to hear appeal on that amount and same could be heard by High Court —Validity–Value of suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction having been fixed at Rs.200 in the plaint, Appellate Court below was not justified in holding that value for purposes of court-fee was Rs.8,00,000 and that appeal lay to High Court—Plaintiff, according to S.7(iv)(1) of Court Fees Act, 1870, was entitled to fix notional value for purpose of court-fee which, according to S.8 of Suits Valuation Act, 1887, would also be the value for jurisdiction and not the value which plaintiff was required by O.VII, R.2, C.P.C. to state an approximate amount which according to him would be payable by defendant—Forum of appeal was dependent not on amount mentioned under O.VII, R.2, C.P.C. but on valuation fixed by plaintiff for purposes of courtfee and jurisdiction—When a final decree was passed only then the Court could require plaintiff to pay difference between court-fees actually paid and fee which would have been payable on the amount decreed—Appeal having been filed against preliminary decree, at that stage valuation could not be finally determined—Appeal, in circumstances, lay to Appellate Court below and not to the High Court—Memorandum of appeal which was returned illegally, was directed to be returned to Appellate Court below to be decided according to law.

2000 YLR 1564 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

NOOR ALI VS MUHAMMAD URIS

Court Fees Act 1870 —-Ss.7(IV-A) & 7(11-CC)—Ad valorem court fee, affixing of—Suit for declaration was filed to the effect that the plaintiffs/respondents be declared as legal and lawful owners of suit land—Contention by plaintiffs was that declaration sought was in regard to any lease relationship between the parties and provisions of S.7(11-CC) of Court Fees Act, 1870 was applicable–Validity—Prayer clause of the plaint was contrary to the contentions raised by the plaintiffs and as such they were liable under the law to pay ad valorem court fee on the plaint as well as on the appeal pending in Lower Appellate Court.

2000 YLR 2104 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

GHULAM RASOOL VS MUHAMMAD KHAN

Court Fees Act 1870 —-S. 7(v) (a) (b) (d)—Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), Ss. 3 & 8—Pre-emption suit–Pecuniary jurisdiction—Land in question as assessed to land revenue—Determination of valuation of suit–Principles.

2000 MLD 1611 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN VS MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN

—-S.42—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(iv)(c) & Sched. II, Art. 17(iii)– Suit for declaration—Court-fee payable—Declaration sought for under S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, must relate to title or to any legal character or to any right as to

1999 SCMR 1049 SUPREME-COURT

P.M. AMER VS QABOOL MUHAMMAD SHAH

S.149—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7(iv)—Deficiency in court-fee– on-compliance with order of Court to make up the deficiency—High Court directed to make up the deficiency in the court-fee both on the plaint in the suit as well as in the memo. of appeal before the High Court in terms of order of First Appellate Court which required the plaintiff to pay court-fee ad valorem on a certain amount, without providing any time for such payment—High Court again did not specify time for payment of court-fee-:-Plaintiff, however, paid the requisite court-fee on the memo. of appeal before the High Court but no court-fee was paid on the plaint till the appeal before Supreme Court—Effect—Order regarding payment of court-fee, held, had not been complied with by the plaintiff in circumstances.

1999 CLC 1383 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

SAID MUHAMMAD VS RAMZAN

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7—Deficiency in court-fee—Determination—court-fee affixed by the petitioner/plaintiff was on the basis of “Aust Panj Sala”—Trial Court had framed a specific issue regarding valuation of suit, but did not ascertain the correct valuation and dismissed the suit—Appeal of petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed by lower Appellate Court on the basis that proper court-fee was not affixed—Validity—Where Trial Court did not ascertain the correct valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, the petitioner/plaintiff was justified in fixing the court-fee on the basis of “Rust Panj Sala” —Finding of lower Appellate Court that petitioner/plaintiff did not affix the ‘court-fee as ascertained by the Trial Court, was not available on record—Case was remanded to lower Appellate Court to determine the deficiency of court-fee.

1999 YLR 2688 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

MUHAMMAD KHAN VS GHULAM RASOOL

Court Fees Act 1870 —-S. 7(v) (a)— “Definite share “—Meaning and scope—Word “definite share” would mean the fractional share of estate–Fractional share could be a half, one-third or any other fractional share of entire estate–Where land did not come within ambit of fractional share, value for purpose of jurisdiction and court fee was to be fixed on market value of land.

1999 CLC 1108 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS FARZAND BEGUM

—-S. 6—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(v)(d) & (vi) (e)—Pre-emption suit—Jurisdictional value—Determination—Suit was resisted by vendee contending that as suit land was not a definite share of estate and was not separately assessed to land r

1998 CLC 1851 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

ABDUL GHANI VS AMIR HAMZA

Court Fees Act 1870 S.7(v)(a)—Determination of court-fee by Court—Contention that court-fee: should have been determined by the Trial Court before dismissing the suit had no force—Court-fee for the suit for possession of immovable property had to be calculated on the market value of the land in view of S.7(v), Court Fees Act. 1870 (as amended)—-Court-fees for possession of immovable property, thus, had to be determined on the basis of prevailing market value of the land at the time of filing of the suit.

1998 MLD 589 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB IN ITS MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS VS REGISTERED FIRM NISARUL HAQ ASSOCIATES GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS

Court Fees Act 1870 –S. 7(iv)(c)—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 149—Dismissal of appeal for non-payment of court-fee —Validity–Defendant’s plea that funds were not available by Finance Department was not valid ground for enlargement of time or grant of permission to make up deficiency of court-fee—Defendants by not affixing requisite court-fee on memo of appeal even after objection of plaintiff, for two years were guilty of contumacy especially when decree of Trial Court clearly indicated payable court-fee—When party to litigation was guilty of contumacy, Court could not extend time for its benefit—Defendant’s conduct in not affixing court-fee on memo. of appeal being contumacious Court would decline to exercise discretion in his favour—Where defaulting party could not make out good cause for condonation of delay, such party could not be allowed to make up deficiency of court-fee after expiry of period of limitation—Government could not claim to be treated in any manner differently from ordinary litigant in such matter—Delay of each day must be explained—Dismissal of appeal by Appellate Court for non-payment of court-fee would not justify interference therein—Defendants were not found entitled to relief on account of their contumacious conduct.

1998 CLC 417 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD HABIB VS MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE

S.12—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(x)(a)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100—First Appellate Court while disposing of appeal found that courtfee had not been paid—Plaintiff’s application for extension in time to make deficiency in court-fee and another application that court-fee already deposited in treasury on specified date be treated to have been paid within time, were dismissed and ,appeal, besides being time-barred, was also dismissed on deficiency of court-fee—Finding of First Appellate Court did not suffer from any infirmity justifying interference in second appeal—Findings of Appellate Court were maintained in circumstances.

1998 CLC 27 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

KAREEM BUX VS P.O. SINDH

42—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7(iv)(c)—Suit for declaration and injunction—Court-fee was not required to be paid ad valorem on market value of subject property—Plaintiff could determine his own valuation about court-fee and jurisdiction.

1997 CLC 2034 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ VS RAHIM BUX

3—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), 7(v)—Province of West Pakistan (Dissolution) Order (1 of 1970), Arts. 4 & 19—Rules framed by Punjab Government under S.3, Suits Valuation Act, 1887, for determining valuation of suits for purpose of jurisdiction falling under S. 7(v), Court Fees Act, 1870–Applicability/non-applicability of such rules to areas forming part of former Bahawalpur State—Provision of Art. 19, Province of West Pakistan (Dissolution) Order, 1970, postulated that all existing laws as defined in explanation attached thereto, which had earlier been applicable to territories, forming part of West Pakistan Province, were to remain in force in territories of Provinces created in consequence of dissolution of West Pakistan Province, as they were applicable before—Rules framed by Provincial Government of Punjab under S.3, Suits Valuation Act, 1887, for determining of value of suits for purpose of jurisdiction for suits falling under S.7(v), Court.. Fees Act, 1870, were thus, applicable to areas of former Bahawalpur State now forming part of Province of Punjab. —[Gullan v. Muhammad Ramzan and others PLD 1962 (W.P.) BJ 33 overruled].

1997 CLC 1859 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

KHUSHI MUHAMMAD VS MUHAMMAD SHAFI

O.VII, R.11(c)—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7—Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.13—Rejection of plaint–Validity—Suit for possession by pre-emption —Discretion of Court to grant time to make up deficiency in court-fee —Extent—Pre-emption suit was filed well within time but for deficiency in court-fee, Court allowed time to make up the same—Held, it was obligatory to allow time for supply of deficiency in court fee before rejecting the plaint—Appellate Court while exercising its discretion under O. VII, R.11(c), C. P. C. rightly afforded opportunity to the appellant to make up deficiency in court-fee—Finding of Appellate Court, .being based on sound reasoning, was upheld by High Court accordingly.

1997 CLC 768 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD ALI VS IMDAD HUSSAIN

S.15—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(v) & (vi)—Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S.3—Pecuniary jurisdiction in pre-emption suit—Determination of—Pecuniary jurisdiction in pre-emption suit was not to be determined by market values or sale considerations—Such suit has to be valued for purposes of court-fee under S.7(v) & (vi), Court Fees Act, 1870 and for purposes of jurisdictional valuation under S.3, Suits Valuation Act, 1887.

1997 CLC 1210 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

AL-AHRAM BUILDERS LIMITED VS PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS’ HOUSING AUTHORITY

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7(i)—Prayer for alternate relief in plaint having been included, plaintiff’s application for permission to pay further court-fee on ground that in specified para. of his plaint he had prayed for alternate relief i.e. damages against defendants and that present market value of property in question, had enhanced—Entitlement—Plaintiff had admittedly prayed for alternate decree for specified amount as damages but despite such fact, at admission stage, no such objection was raised by office of Court which had resulted in filing of application—Plaintiff’s application was granted and he was allowed to pay additional court-fee on account of his alternate prayer—Plaintiff was allowed to amend title as well as relevant para. of plaint.

1997 MLD 3110 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

UNITED BANK LTD. VS HOTEL METROPOLE (PRIVATE) LIMITED

Court Fees Act 1870 —-S. 7—Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S.8—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.19—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XIV, Rr.1 & 2—Suit for possession by tenant—Suit filed by tenant for recovery of, rented premises from which he was forcibly dispossessed—Court-fee—Pecuniary jurisdiction–Contention was that suit was undervalued for purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction—Suits in regard to possession of immovable property were to be valued for purpose of court-fee and valuation under S. 7(v)(xi)(e) of Court Fees Act, 1870 and S.8 of Suits Valuation Act, 1887 instead of S.7(v)(e) of Court Fees Act, 1870—Held, valuation of court-fee for recovery of possession to be computed according to amount of rent of immovable property which was subject-matter -of suit—Valuation for purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction in such cases would be the same—Annual rental value of property, court-fee and jurisdiction value would also be the same—Amount being below pecuniary jurisdiction of High Court, suit could not be maintained—Plaintiff, having been pursuing matter diligently within limitation, suit should be transferred to appropriate Court having such jurisdiction.

1996 PLD 436 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

NAQASH AHMED VS MUHAMMAD SHARIF

S.7(ii) — Punjab Court Fees (Abolition) Ordinance (X of 1983), S.2 — West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S. 19 — Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 — No court-fees was payable on suit for maintenance but fixed amount of Rs. 15 was payable as court-fee –Subject-matter of appeal did not exceed to Rs.25,000 Appellate Court was not justified in demanding court-fee; on decretal amount — Order of Appellate Court demanding court-fee on order of appeal was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

1996 CLC 1620 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ VS MUHAMMAD MUKHTAR

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7(iv-A)—Suit valuation and payment of court-fee—Plaintiff in his-suit having claimed ownership of land on basis of gift deed, suit should have been valued for ‘the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction in accordance with S.7(iv-A) of Court Fees Act, 1870.

1995 SCMR 1720 SUPREME-COURT

MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT BAIG VS MAZHAR HUSSAIN MINHAS, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI

19—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7 (1) (ii)—Punjab Court Fees (Abolition) Ordinance (X of 1983), S. 2—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)—Court-Fees on memorandum of appeal—Leave to appeal was granted to consider the question as to whether in view of the abolition of court-fee by S. 2, Punjab Court Fees (Abolition), Ordinance, 1983 any court-fee was payable by the appellant on the memorandum of appeal.

1995 CLC 1418 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS JUDGE FAMILY COURT

19—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7 (i) & (ii) and Sched. I, Art. 1–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Appeal against judgment and decree of Family Court—Requisite court-fee in appeal—Non-payment of court-fee on direction of Appellate Court on memorandum of appeal–Effect—Court-fee to be paid on any plaint filed before Family Court would be Rs.15—-Such concession, however, was confined only to plaint and it does not extend to appeal—On memorandum of appeal, court-fee ad valorem has to be affixed—Amount on which court-fee was payable on appeal would be computed in terms of S. 7 (i) & (ii), Court Fees Act, 1870 and its Sched 1, Art.l—Appellate Court had rightly directed petitioner to fix requisite court-fee on memorandum of appeal by specified date—Petitioner neither made up deficiency in court-fee nor showed sufficient cause for not doing the same–Court was justified to dismiss petitioner’s appeal for non-payment of court-fee within time fixed by it—Even on merits amount of maintenance fixed by Family Court was neither excessive nor unjust on account of prevalent inflation and high cost of living—Liability of father and husband for maintenance allowance to his son and wife being unquestionable could not be allowed to be avoided—Judgment and decree of Family Court was affirmed in circumstances.

1995 MLD 864 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

NIAZ AHMED VS SHAMS-UD-DIN

—-Art.199—Court Fees Act (VIIl of 1870), S.7—Appeal filed before Appellate Court below against judgment of Trial Court passed on basis of oath was accepted by Appellate Court below despite no required court-fee was paid on memorandum of appeal—App

1995 MLD 737 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

LAL KHAN VS IMDAD HUSSAIN

—-S.15—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.10—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(5), (6)—Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S.3—Return of plaint by Trial Court after granting decree in suit, on question of valuation–Validity—Effect—Tr

1995 MLD 45 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

SHAHAB-UD-DIN VS MARIAM BIBI

—-S.42—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(iv)(a)—Suit for declaration of title—Court-fee payable—Such suit for landed property has to be valued on its market price and would be covered by provisions of S.7(iv)(a), Court Fees Act, 1870.

1995 CLC 309 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

IMAM BUX VS MEHRAB

Ss. 14 & 19—Court Fees Act (V11 of 1870), S. 7(1),(2)—Appeal against order of maintenance—Court-fee leviable on memorandum of appeal–Decretal amount relating to arrears of maintenance being Rs.7,200, court-fee payable for purpose of appeal would be computed in terms of S.7(i), (ii) Court Fees Act, 1870, which would be amount of (Rs.7,200) as arrears plus ten times the amount payable annually i.e., Rs.72,000—Amount of court-fee payable on total amount would be computed under Art.l, Sched. I, Court Fees Act, 1870—Petitioner was bound to deposit requisite court-fee in said terms on memorandum of appeal.

1995 CLC 1168 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

KARAMAT U. KAZI VS DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KARACHI

14—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7(i)(ii), Sched. 1, Art. 1—Appeal against judgment and decree of Family Court—Such appeal required court-fee as per S. 7(i)(ii) read with Art. 1, Sched. I, Court Fees Act, 1870—Appellate Court can call upon appellant to make up deficiency in payment of court-fee–Appellate Court is required to determine the amount of court-fee which appellant is liable to pay beyond the amount already paid.

1995 MLD 342 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD AYUB AWAN VS SHAMIM DADI

Court Fees Act 1870 —-S.7(v) [as amended by Sindh Finance Act (XIII of 1974)]—Suit for possession of house—Requisite court-fee—Suit for possession of a house is to be valued under S.7(v) of Court Fees Act, 1870 and ad valorem court-fee stamp of the value of property is to be affixed—Value of property, would be the market value for purposes of S.7(v), Court Fees Act, 1870.

1995 CLC 206 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SHAMIM DADI VS MASOOD SHAIKH

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7(xi)(e) & 7(v)(e)—Suit involving determination of title to property in question, as also rights, interests and liabilities of parties—Valuation for purposes of jurisdiction—Provision of S.7(xi), Court Fees Act, 1870, relates to suits between landlord and tenant and would have no application where rights, interests and others were also involved—Provision of S.7(xi)(e), Court Fees Act, 1870 applies to those cases only where tenant had been illegally ejected by landlord—Suit being for determination of title to property in question, as also rights, interests and liabilities of parties, would be covered by provisions of S.7(v)(e), Court Fees Act, 1870, providing for computation of court-fee on basis of market value—Parties agreeing to the market value of premises—Court-fee had, thus, been rightly, computed in suit and same was within jurisdiction of the Court.

1994 SCMR 62 SUPREME-COURT

FATIMA BIBI VS NOOR DAD

Court Fees Act 1870 —-S. 7, (v) (c)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)—Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether reliance could not be placed on table of net profits produced by plaintiffs and, in any case, defendants should have been given opportunity to rebut the same.

1994 CLC 1664 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MEHMOOD AHMED VS SARWAR SULTANA

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7(iv)(b) & Art. 17(vi)—Suit for partition of property jointly owned by parties—Court fee—Mode of payment—Suit for partition of joint property can be filed on payment of Rs.15 as court-fee under Art. 17(vi), Court Fees Acts 1870, which covers a suit where it is not possible to estimate money value the subject-matter of dispute and which is not otherwise provided for under Court Fees Act—Ordinarily, in partition suit, it was not possible to estimate money value of the subject-matter correctly and it was left to be decided finally after recording evidence of both parties—Court would thereafter, require plaintiff to pay deficit court-fee on basis of final determination of the value of subject-matter in question—Provision of S: 7(iv)(b) of the Act was not applicable in such cases—Where, however, any person was ousted from the property and his claim to a share therein was denied by other co-owners then the court-fee was payable under S. 7(iv)(b) for enforcing a right to share in joint family property—There being no denial of plaintiffs, entitlement to a share in a property in question, mere fact that in evidence some estimate of the value of property had been given was not enough to apply provision of S.7(iv)(b), Court Fees Act for payment of ad valorem court-fee at present stage.

1994 CLC 1437 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

JANE MARGRETE WILLIAM VS ABDUL HAMID MIAN

S.42—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7(iv)C—Suit for declaration of title only—Plaintiff had not sought relief of possession—Effect—Where relief of possession flows from the main relief of declaration of title and case squarely falls under S. 42, Specific Relief Act, 1877 and S. 7(iv)C, Court Fees Act 1870, plaintiff would be allowed to amend his plaint so as to ask for relief of possession as a consequential relief.

1994 CLC 493 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

AISHA VS NASIR MEHMOOD

14—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(i)(ii)—Deficiency in court-fee–Question of deficiency of court-fee was raised before Appellate Court, which Court did not deal with that question—Court was under legal obligation to have attended to question of court-fee raised before it and to have decided as to whether court-fee paid by appellant was deficient, if so to what extent—Case was remanded to decide afresh after discussing evidence on record.

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 MLD 402 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD ISMAIL VS MUKHTAR AHMAD

—-O.VII, R. 11 & S. 115—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(v)(a) [as amended by Punjab Finance Act (XIV of 1973)] & S. 12(2)—Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.15—Suit for possession of agricultural land through pre-emption —Payment of court-f

1993 CLC 1391 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD RIAZ ASLAM VS MUHAMMAD AKHTAR

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7 (iv) (c) & Sched. 1, Art. 1—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.39 & 42—Court-fee payable on plaint—Determination—Principles—Correct principle to determine proper court-fee payable on plaint in a particular suit was that plaint as a whole should be looked at; substance of the plaint and not the ostensible form of the plaint would matter in determining court-fee on the plaint—Veil could be pierced through by a searching eye for judging the true substance of the plaint to determine the amount of court-fee payable on the plaint—Difference between a suit for cancellation of a document and a suit for declaration of title, and payment of court-fee on each of such suits.

1993 MLD 1023 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

GHULAM FARID VS PATHANI

Court Fees Act 1870 —-S. 7(iv)(c) & 7(iv)(c) (iv)(a) & (v)(a) [as amended)-=-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42—Suit for declaration of rights and consequential relief flowing out of such declaration—Computation and payment of court-fee—Plaintiff had disowned sale of land and receipt of consideration ascribed to her in mutation proceedings—Plaintiff had denied her appearance before Revenue Officer and sued for annulment of sale mutation on score of fraud and misrepresentation—Plaintiff’s suit for computation aqd payment of court-fee, would fall in S.7(iv)(c), and not under S.7 (iv) (c) (iv) (a), (as amended), Court Fees Act, 1870—Plaintiff, in terms of S.7 (iv) (c), Court Fees Act was entitled to put her own valuation on the relief sought in the plaint—Plaintiff’s suit being for declaration of rights and consequential relief flowing from such declaration and not for cancellation of document, (to which she was not a party) she could not be put to value the suit in question, for purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction on total value of the land shown to have been paid for the same in the sanctioned mutation.

1993 MLD 724 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

TAJ DIN VS SARDAR BEGUM

—-Ss.3 & 4—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(iv)(b)—Suit for partition by co-sharer—Value of court-fee—Every co-sharer was entitled to claim himself to be holding possession of common property through other co-sharer in actual possession thereof

1993 MLD 711 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA

—-Ss.14 & 19—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(1)(ii) & Sched. I, Art.1–Appeal against order of Family Court—Deficiency in court-fee—Appeal filed with deficit court-fee—Appellant having failed to make good deficiency in court-fee even on extend

1993 MLD 30 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD BASHIR VS MUHAMMAD SHARIF

Court Fees Act 1870 —-S.7(iv)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.149—Dismissal of pre-emption suit on account of deficiency in court-fee—Validity—Court did not itself reckon any amount to be able to determine deficiency in court-fee nor did it specify assumed deficiency nor provided any opportunity to plaintiffs for payment of any more court-fee—No question of limitation was involved where plaintiffs had made good deficiency in court-fee in accordance with order of the Court—Payment of court-fee in accordance with the order of Court would have the same force and effect as if payment of such fee had been made in the first instance.

1993 CLC 1682 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SARWAT ARA VS SABRA KHATOON

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7 (v)—Valuation of property for purposes of court-fee —Jurisdiction—Trial Court arbitrarily assessing market value of property in question—Such finding having not been based on evidence, was rightly set aside by Appellate Court—Plaintiffs valuation having been accepted, Trial Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit.

1993 MLD 1244 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

PYORRHOEA CURE TRUST VS MUSHTAQ ALI

—-Ss. 15, 18 & 19—Court Pees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(iv)(f)—Suit for rendition of accounts—Plaintiff had alleged that defendants being trustees of Trust were guilty of mismanagement and had also indulged in misappropriation of various amounts—Rcl

1992 SCMR 1306 SUPREME-COURT

SEWA VS SANTI

Court Fees Act 1870 —-S. 7(iv)(c)—Suit for declaration and consequential relief-: -Question whether plaint lore proper amount of court-fee had to be decided in accordance with provisions of Court Fees Act, as they stood on the day when suit was filed viz. 3-2-1971—Plaintiff had discretion allowed to him by law, to value the relief sought by him—Trial Court had no power to interfere with plaintiff’s discretion—Finding of Courts below that plaint did not bear proper amount of court-fee was not warranted—Case was remanded to be disposed of in accordance with law.

1992 CLC 2270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

KHURSHEED AHMAD VS MEHR SALABAT KHAN, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL

14—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(l)(ii)—Appeal—Non-payment of court-fee — Effect — Appellant filing appeal against judgment of Trial Court in which appellant was held liable to pay arrears of past and future maintenance to minors, had claimed immunity from liability to pay court-fee because of a judgment of Federal Shariat Court holding that charging of court-fee on documents filed in Courts was un-Islamic — Appellant had alleged that courtfee was not payable on memorandum of appeal and Court demanding same had acted in excess of jurisdiction—Judgment of Federal Shariat Court (PLD 1992 FSC 195) referred to by appellant in support of his contention did not provide legal cover to his lapse because it had, as yet, not taken effect–Appellant in circumstance, was obliged to pay court-fee on value of subject-matter in dispute in appeal which was arrears and future maintenance awarded by Trial Court in accordance with S. 7(l)(ii) of Court Fees Act, 1870.

1992 CLC 947 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ALLAH DITTA VS GHULAM RASOOL SHAH

S.149 & O.VII, R.11—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 7 (vi) & 28—, Deficiency in -court-fee —Making good of—Rejection of plaint—On question of court-fee, duty of Court concerned was first to determine exact amount of court-fee payable on a lis, then to afford suitor an opportunity to make good its deficiency and if suitor would not pay court-fee, only then Court could reject plaint—Said process some times, involved extension of time and Court under S. 149, C.P.C., had ample authority to extend time—Suitor, would forefeit his right to indulgence of Court where he displayed a conduct of positive mala fides, collusion or bad faith to avoid payment of court-fee due from him—No element of mala fides, bad faith or gross negligence, being involved in case and plaintiff having made up deficiency in court-fee after due process, his plaint could not be rejected especially when. value of stamp paid by plaintiff was not ridiculously low.

1992 CLC 553 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

WALAYAT BEGUM VS WAZIR BEGUM

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7 (iv) (b) & Art. 17, Sched. II—Co-sharer’s suit for partition —Court fee—Suit by a co-sharer for partition was to be stamped with a court-fee of Rs.10 under Art. 17 (vi), Sched. II of Court Fees Act, 1870 and such suit did not fall under S.7 (iv) (b), Court Fees Act, 1870.

1992 CLC 505 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ABDUF MANNAN VS SIKANDAR KHAN

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7 (iv)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11—Deficiency in – court-fee—Defendant’s plea that plaintiff did not make up deficiency in spite of repeated opportunities granted to him by Trial Court and in view of his negligent and contumacious conduct he was not entitled to any indulgence, remained unestablished—Defendants failed to refer to interim orders whereby plaintiff was allowed more than one opportunity for making up deficiency in court-fees on plaint—Defendant’s plea that deficiency in court-fee was not even supplied by plaintiff as per direction of Court was not established.

1991 PLD 171 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN VS GULAB JAN

7(i) [as amended by North-West Frontier Province (Court Fees) (Amendment) Ordinance (IV of 1982), Sched. II, Art. 22—North-West Frontier Province Court Fee (Abolition) Ordinance (XIV of 1978), S. 2—Fatal Accidents Act (XIII of 1855), S. 1—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—North-West Frontier Province Court Fees (Amendment) Ordinance, 1982, through which S.7, Court Fees Act, 1870 was amended, whether in any manner had interfered with the abolition of court-fee provided for under S.2, North-West Frontier Province Court Fee (Abolition) Ordinance 1978—Under S.7(i) as amended, although court-fee would be leviable on the suit according to the amount claimed, yet no court-fee would be leviable where amount claimed did not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees—Order passed in revision whereby plaintiff was directed to pay court-fee on the amount claimed, was declared to be illegal and without lawful authority.

1991 CLC 1655 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

SAKHI MUHAMMAD VS HAKIM ALI

—-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 objec

1991 MLD 210 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ATTA-UR-RCHMAN VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI

—-Ss. 5, 19 & Sched.—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(ii)—Suit for maintenance decreed—Court-fee payable on appeal—Subject-matter in dispute being plaintiff’s right to get maintenance and corresponding liability of defendant to pay the same, su

1991 PLD 66 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

MST. NASIM AKHTAR VS MUHAMMAD SABEEL

Court Fees Act 1870 —-S. 7(iv)(c) & (v)(d)—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42—Court Fees payable on suit for declaration and consequential relief of possession—Where plaintiff could not ask for main relief viz. possession without asking for a declaration, such suit would be one for declaration with consequential relief for possession—Suit in such a case would be covered by provision of S.7(iv)(c) and not by S.7(v)(d), Court Fees Act, 1870—-Where, however, it was proved that without seeking declaration, plaintiff was entitled to seek relief of possession then suit would be covered by provision of S.7(v)(d), Court Fees Act, 1870—Where from the nature of the suit, consequential relief could be allowed only when plaintiff through declaration from competent Court had succeeded in removing any other obstacle then in such like cases, declaration would be the legal necessity for obtaining the real relief from the Court.

1991 PLD 50 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

PERVEZ AKHTER VS RAJ MUHAMMAD

Court Fees Act 1870 —-S. 7(iv)(c)—Valuation of suit—Plaintiff had absolute discretion to put his own valuation—Court had no jurisdiction to question such valuation, however, arbitrary same had been fixed—Plaintiff thus, had sole discretion to put any value for the purpose of court-fee on the relief of suit.

1990 CLC 1891 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GOVERNMENT OF SINDH VS ABDUL MAJEED

Court Fees Act 1870 —-S. 7(iv)(f)—Suit for accounts—Valuation—Choice in such a suit was that of the plaintiff to value his suit according to amount as shown by him.

1990 PLD 328 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL JABBAR KHAN VS NAWABDIN

7(vi?a) [as added by Sindh Finance Act (XIII of 1974)]???Share in joint family property???Enforcement of right to share???Payment of court?fee???Provisions of S. 7(iv), Court Fees Act, 1870, after addition of clause (vi?a) to S. 7 of the Act, are controlled by clause (vi?a) of S. 7 of the Act???Valuation of the suit for purposes of court?fee, would thus be according to the value of the property claimed???Plaintiffs could no more be permitted to give their own valuation to the reliefs to enforce their right to share joint property after promulgation of Sindh Finance Act, 1974.

1990 MLD 68 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL QADDUS VS SHABANA PARVEEN

Court Fees Act 1870 —S.7(i) & (ii) and Sched. I, Art. 1—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.149–Provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870, that no document chargeable with prescribed Court-fee can either be filed or received in any Court unless prescribed court-fee has been affixed thereon is subject to certain exemptions and the provisions made in S. 149, Civil Procedure Code is one of such exceptions.

1989 MLD 2150 SUPREME-COURT-INDIA

ABDUL HAMID SHAMI VS ABDUL MAJID

Court Fees Act 1870 —S. 7(iv)(f)–Suit for accounts–Tentative valuation given by plaintiff should not be arbitrary and unreasonable.

1989 MLD 1125 SUPREME-COURT-INDIA

COMMERCIAL AVIATION AND TRAVEL COMPANY VS VIMLA PANNALAL

Court Fees Act 1870 —S.7(iv)(f)–Rendition of accounts–Suit for–Valuation of court-fee–Court has to accept plaintiff’s valuation tentatively.

1989 CLC 202 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

SHER MUHAMMAD VS SHER MUHAMMAD

—S.16–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(x)(c)–Suit for possession relating to termination of lease–Court-fee to be payable–Where dispute between parties was for termination of lease and in consequence thereof, for possession of lease property, court

1989 PLD 247 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

GUL ZAMAN VS MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE

—S.4–West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S.18–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(v)(e)–Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S.3–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XX, R.14 & S.96-Jurisdictional value–Forum of appeal, determination of–

1989 MLD 3003 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS FAZAL MUHAMMAD

—S.148–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(iv-A)–Gift deed–Valuation for court-fee, to be ad valorem–Amount assessed by Local Commissioner as market value of the property was correctly determined to be the valuation for court-fee–Period of ten days a

1989 MLD 2945 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

FATIMA BIBI VS NOOR DAD

Court Fees Act 1870 —S.7–Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) Ss.4 & 15–Deficiency in court fee-Burden lay on pre-emptors to show that they had paid proper court-fee; but when same was challenged as incorrect, defendants were also under an obligation to show what was correct valuation–On such an objection being raised, Court had to compute valuation and in process of computation either party could rely upon produce index–If defendant failed to produce anything of the sort, assumption should be that they tacitly accepted one filed on behalf of the pre-emptor–Where Court arrived at conclusion as to certain valuation after examining tables of produce provided by respondents its findings and decree passed in suit was upheld.

1989 MLD 394 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

NASIRA MAZHAR VS ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN

—O.VII R.11(b)(c)–Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.15–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(vi)–Making up of deficiency in court-fee–Trial Court prior to making final judgment and decree in favour of pre-emptor did not determine court-fee payable b

1989 MLD 231 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

LAL KHAN VS SULTAN AHMAD

Court Fees Act 1870 —S.149–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870; S.7–Court-lee–Deficiency in- Application for extension of time to make good deficiency–Grant of or refusal to extend time to make good deficiency in court-fee is within discretion of Courtâ€”A party guilty of- contumacy and committing a positive act of mala fides is not entitled to exercise of such discretion in his favour.

1989 MLD 32 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

AMIR ALI VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Court Fees Act 1870 —S.7(iv)(c)–Act to be construed strictly–Suit for declaration and consequential relief–Suit filed by plaintiff for declaration that registered sale-deed in favour of respondent was without consideration and having been obtained through fraud was illegal, void and ineffective on his rights–Suit would fall under S.7(ii)(c), Court Fees Act–Plaintiff having an absolute discretion to put his own valuation on relief claimed by him, Trial Court had no authority to question valuation howsoever arbitrary might be–No exception could be taken to valuation for purposes of court-fee fixed by plaintiff–Court by requiring plaintiff to pay a certain court-fee, held flouted mandatory provisions of S.7(iv)(c).

1989 MLD 1103 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS GHULAM RASUL

Court Fees Act 1870 —Ss.7(iv) (f) & 28–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.149, 151, O.VTI, R.11 & O.VIII, Rr.6(3), 10–Counter-claim–Non-payment of court-fees–Effect–Suit for rendition of accounts–Defendant filed counter-claim valuing same for Rs. four lac but did not pay court-fees on said amount–Defendant filed application to pronounce judgment against plaintiff for failing to file written statement in respect of counter-claim–Plaintiff, earlier also moved application to reject counter-claim for failure of defendant to pity court-fees according to valuation of counter-claim–Held, since proper court-fees had not been paid on counter-claim, same could not be treated at par with plaint for purpose of invoking provisions of O.VII, R.11, C.P C.–Defendant was directed to pay court-fees on his own valuation by specified time–Application of defendant for pronouncing judgment against plaintiff was dismissed in circumstances.

1988 PLD 707 SUPREME-COURT

AHMAD BAKHSH VS KHURSHID AKBAR KHAN

7, para. (vi)–Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.21–Preemption, suit for–Consideration of sale shown as Rs.22,000 in sale-deed but pre-emptor alleging consideration to be only Rs.10,000–Suit decreed but Trial Court holding sale price of Rs.22,000 to have been fixed in good faith –Pre-emptor filing appeal seeking reduction of purchase price to Rs.10,000 and memo of appeal stamped with court-fee on Rs.10,000–Appellate Court on being apprised of deficiency in payrtient of court-fee found court-fee to be deficient but nevertheless entertained the appeal on merit and while dismissing appeal called upon appellant to deposit purchase price by a certain date–Contention that memo: of appeal having not been stamped with proper court-fee there was no proper appeal and the Appellate Court was not competent to extend date of depositing the purchase price repelled by Supreme Court.

1988 SCMR 1345 SUPREME-COURT

LABHA VS ALTAF HUSSAIN

—S.15–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(vi)–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)–Dismissal of pre-emption suit on ground of payment of deficient court-fees was sought by petitioner/ vendee-Question regarding court-fees raised in the petition

1988 CLC 1311 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

SHER MUHAMMAD VS MUHAMMAD NAWAZ

–O.VII, R. 11(c)–Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.15-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870) S.7(vi)–Deficiency in court-fee–Effect on limitation–Mere non-payment of court-fee by plaintiff within period of limitation or making up deficiency in court-fee af

1988 CLC 1645 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

HAMEEDA BEGUM VS FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 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.

1988 CLC 1462 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS ASSOCIATED TRADING CO. LTD

—S. 2(2) & O. VII, R. 11–Court-Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(iv)(c)–Court-fee on memorandum of appeal against rejection of plaint–Rejection of plaint being a decree by virtue of S.2(2), C.P.C. court-fee payable on memorandum of appeal, filed against re

1987 SCMR 1263 SUPREME-COURT

ALI MUHAMMAD ALIAS ALI AHMAD VS MAHBUB AHMAD

—S. 7(v)(e) & (vi)–Punjab Pre-emption Act (I) of 1913), Ss. 4 & 21–Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S. 3–Value given in the plaint for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee also determines the forum of appeal.–[Appeal (civil)]. Ilahi Bakhsh v. B

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 S. 7(vi)–Punjab Court Fees (Abolition) Ordinance (X of 1983), S.2(b)–Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115), para.25(7)-Pre-emption suit– Court-fee–Claims filed in Courts earlier to the enforcement of the Ordinance X of 1983 were clearly liable to court-fees in accordance with the law then prevailing.

1987 MLD 2541 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

NIEHAR ELAHI VS Maulvi GHULAM QADIR

—S.100 & O.VII, R.11–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7-Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.15–Second appeal–Deficiency in court-fee payable on pre-emption suit filed by appellant pointed out for first time by Appellate Court on ground that a part o

1987 CLC 839 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

IMDAD ALI VS MUHAMMAD AZHAR IQBAL

96—Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7(vi)–Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 21–Pre-emption suit–First Appeal before High Court– Maintainability of–On objection raised by vendees/appellants before Trial Court that suit value fixed by pre-emptor for purposes of court-feo, and jurisdiction was less pre-emptors /respondents enhanced value as claimed by vendees–Objection to valuation before High Court being totally opposed to one already taken before Trial Court, contention of appellants that appeal would lie before District Judge and not before High Court, held, could not be accepted.

1987 CLC 99 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

GHULAM MUSTAFA VS TAJ MUHAMMAD

—-S. 96–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7(vi)–Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 21–Pre-emption suit–Appeal–Jurisdictional value beyond jurisdiction of Appellate Court–Where Appellate Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, judgment and decree p

1987 PLD 512 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD ZAFAR VS YOUSAF AHSAN

18–Suits Valuation Act (VI of 1887), S. 11–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0 VII, R. 11(b)–Forum of appeal determined by valuation entered in plaint-Trial Court not giving any finding about correct jurisdictional value for purpose of suit–Forum of appeal would be one on basis of valuation as stated in plaint in circumstance.

1986 SCMR 333 SUPREME-COURT

MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS ABDUL HAMID

—Art. 185(3)–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss.7 & 28–Leave to appeal granted to consider effect of deliberately fixing a nominal court-fee by plaintiff-respondent and to consider whether in circumstances of case he should have been allowed to make up

1986 SCMR 1439 SUPREME-COURT

ILAM DIN VS ABDUL MAJID

—O. VII, R. 11–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7–Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3–Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.15–Deficiency of court-fee and its effect on limitation–Failure to pay proper court-fee at time of institution of suit would n

1986 SCMR 1005 SUPREME-COURT

SULTAN AHMAD VS KHUDA BUX

—S. 149–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7–Court-fee–Deficiency-Limitation–First appellate Court applying its mind and coming to conclusion that plaintiffs in suit were entitled to grant of time in circumstances of case–Order being a discretionary o

1986 CLC 2057 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

GHULAM FATIMA VS FAZAL

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7(iv)(a) & (c)–Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42–Gift–Denial of–Suit based on denial of gift, held, could not be regarded as suit for declaration as to right in or title to immovable property–Such suit would be chargeable to court-fee under S. 7(iv)(c) of court-fees Act, 1870–Section 7(iv)(a), court-fees Act, 1870, therefore, would not be applicable in circumstances.

1986 MLD 733 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD TUFAIL VS SARDAR KHAN

15 Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(v) [as amended by Punjab Finance Act (XI V of 1973) ]??Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100?Pre?emption suit?? Court?fee?? Appeal??Suit instituted before enforcement of substituted cl. (v) of S.7, Court Fees Act by Punjab Finance Act, 1973 and pre?emption decree passed after substitution thereof??Appeals in .such decree to be valued according to substituted cl. (v) and accompanied by court?fee at fifteen times net profit of land??Vendee failing to pay fee at this rate at his first and second appeals against decree passed in a suit valued at ten .times land revenue of land in dispute as existing before substituted cl. (v)??First and second appeals filed by vendee, held, could not be adjudicated on merits because of their incompetency on account of deficient court-fee??Vendee not complying with direction of Taxing Officer to pay requisite court?fee within period of limitation prescribed for filing second appeal and. not deserving indulgence due to their negligence and contumacy??Appeal dismissed.

1986 MLD 534 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

RUQAYYA BIBI V: ABDUL MAJID VS 534

Court Fees Act 1870 —S.7(v)(c)–Annual net profits–Statement of–Requirements–Correct statement of annual net profits, held, would pertain to crops sown in suit land during year next before date of institution of suit.

1986 CLC 126 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD AMIN VS AFZAL AHMAD ALIAS AFZAAL AHMAD

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) , Ss. 96 & 100–Court–fee-Memorandum of appeal–When subject-matter of suit and appeal identical, court-fee payable on appeal, held, would be same which was paid in suit–When two are different, court-fee payable would be calculated on value of subject-matter in dispute in appeal.

1986 CLC 1650 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

RASHIDA KHATOON VS MAHFOOZ K. ASIF

Court Fees Act 1870 Ss.7(v)(e) & 7 (xi)(cc)–Suit for recovery of property from tenant-Court-fees to be paid–Court-fees for recovery of property from tenant, after service of notice to quit, held, would be according to amount of rent of property to which suit reds, payable for the year next before filing of suit–Provisions of S. 7(v)(e) of Act VII of 1870 would not be applicable because tenant could not become trespasser-Relationship of landlord and tenant between parties would not cease to exist even upon determination of tenancy by service of notice, or where lease was for a fixed period by afflux of time.

1986 MLD 342 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VS MRS. MUHAMMAD MOHSIN

Court Fees Act 1870 —S.7–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11–Pre-emption suit–Market value, determination of–Determination of market value of subject-matter depends upon a number of facts and circumstances-Valuation in plaint normally determined jurisdiction of- a Court–Court can interfere to correct valuation given in plaint where it was based upon misrepresentation or fraud–Mere fact that some stray statements or admissions had been mode by parties or witnesses would not amount to an adjudication of market value.

1986 CLC 123 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SAEEDA BANO VS MUHAMMAD SABIR

Ss. 39 & 42–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7(iv)(c)–Suit for declaration and cancellation of agreement–Court-fee–Court is to take into consideration plaint as a whole and see nature of relief claimed by plaintiff–Relief of declaration could be sought under S. 42, Specific Relief Act while cancellation of agreement falls under S. 39 of same Act–In suit for declaration and cancellation of document or decree, court-fees, held, was to be paid under S. 7(iv)(c) of Court Fees Act, 1877.

1985 PLD 393 SUPREME-COURT

ILAHI BAKHS VS BILQEES BEGUM

7(v)(vi)-Pre-emption suit-Valuation for purpose of courtfee-Agricultural land-Valuation to be made on basis of land revenue and not to be computed or calculated on basis of its market value.

1985 CLC 2765 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD WALAYAT VS ABDUL MAJEED

—O. VII, r. 11(c)–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 7(v)(cj & 10–Pre-emption suit, dismissal of–Grounds for–Deficiency in court-fee–Making good of–Duty of Court–Subordinate Court dismissed pre-emptor’s suit due to non-payment of proper court-fee

1985 CLC 2651 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

BASHIR ABMAD VS BARKAT ALI

—O. VII. r. 11–Punjab Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913), S.21–Court-fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7(vi)–Pre-emption suit–Court-fee, deficiency of–Order of trial Court to file statement of net profits–Plaintiff’s non-compliance attracted dismissal of suit f

1985 MLD 1233 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ALLAH BAKHSH VS KHUDA BAKHSH

Court Fees Act 1870 —S.7(v)(d)–Valuation of suit–Valuation not determined by District Judge himself–Legality of order of transfer could not be gone into without determining question of valuation–Case remanded to trial Court to determine if suit was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction, in which case order under O.VII, r.10, C.P.C. would .have to be passed by Court otherwise same should be decided on merits on basis of evidence already on record.

1985 MLD 971 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

RIASAT ALI VS MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN

–S. 21–Court Fees Act (VII of 1810), S. 7(v)(vi)–Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9–Pre–emption suit–Deficiency it court-fee–Some tampering alleged in Register Khasra Girdawari-Appellate Court not holding pre-emptors responsible for

1985 PLD 112 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

BASHIR AHMAD VS MUSHTAQ AHMAD

7(iv)(c) & (iv-A) [as inserted by Punjab Finance Act (XIV of 1973), S. 8]-Provisions of cl. (iv-A) are in nature of an exception to cl. (iv)(c)-Object of amendment of S. 7(iv) by S. 8, Punjab Finance Act, 1973 traced and illustrated.

1985 PLD 645 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

SHAUKAT ALI VS MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN

7(vi)-Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), Ss. 4 & 15Court-fee-Pre-emption suit-Valuation for purpose of court-fee Criterion being, yield of net profit during period of one year immediately preceding presentation of plaint and not necessarily profits accrued in both crops-Net profits accrued in only one crop, held, would be net profits accrued from land during relevant year and they would not cease to be so, on account merely of its failure to yield any more profit in ensuing crop within that year-Contention, that since in Khasra Girdawari there was no crop shown to have been raised in part of land in Rabi when it was left fallow, therefore, court-fee was liable to be paid on market value of land was misconceived and untenable.

1985 PLD 630 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

BAHDUR SHER KHAN VS RIAZ AHMAD

Ss. 4 & 15-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. VII, r. 11 & O. XVII, r. 3-Pre-emption suit Deficit court-fee Dismissal under O. XVII, r. 3, C. P. C.-Appeal against dismissal of suit for want of evidence rejected by first appellate Court as “deficiently stamped” – Petitioner, depositing entire amount of deficit” court-fee into government treasury on due date and praying appellate Court for extension in time but such prayer was refused-Petitioner, held, performed his part of duty by depositing amount in time-Failure to supply requisite fee stamps within time fixed by Court could not be made responsibility of petitioner as it was duty of treasury officials to provide him stamps-Conduct of petitioner neither negligent nor contumacious-First appellate Court was not justified to dismiss his appeal on this ground and refuse adjudication of controversy on merits –

1985 PLD 537 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD ISMAIL VS JAMIL-UR-REHMAN

Ss. 7(v) & 17, Art. 1-Preamble-Court-fee.-Deficiency of-Deficiency in court-fee to be made before final disposal of suit-Suit did not terminate with passing of preliminary decree but still pending and deficiency in court-fee could be made before final disposal of case Court does not become functus officio after passing of preliminary decree.

1984 PLD 289 SUPREME-COURT

SIDDIQUE KHAN VS ABDUL SHAKUR KHAN

Art. 185(3)-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, r. I1(c), O. XLl and Ss. 107, 149 & 151-Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913),’ S. 15-Punjab Finance Act (XIV of 1973), S. 8-Court Fees Act (VIIof 1870), S. 7(vi)-Deficiency of court-fee and its effect on limitation Leave to appeal granted to examine contention (1) whether appellant could avoid paying court-fee calculated on basis of amendment in law (through Punjab Finance Act, 1973), for paying court-fee on appeal, filed after amendment, on ground that : right of appeal being vested one, court-fee leviable at time of institution of snit (which admittedly was prior to amendment by Finance Act, 1973) was correct court-fee for appeal which would be deemed to be in continuation of suit : l2) view held in P L D 1972 Lah. 743 according to petitioner’s contention was not correct.-[Court-fee].

1984 CLC 29 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

JAVID AHMED VS NATIONAL BANK OF. PAKISTAN

— Ss. 7 & 7-A [as inserted by Baluchistan Finance Ordinance (IX of 1981]-Term “.`any case of civil nature” used in S. 7-A-Held, includes appeal-Valuation of appeal cannot always be same as that of original suit-Appellant need not value his appeal for rel

1984 CLC 1762 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ABDUR RASHID VS MUHAMMAD JAMIL SADDIQUE

— S. 15-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7 read with Notification No. 353/80/248/ST-1, dated 4-2-1980-Notification exempts suits of Civil and Revenue Courts at all stages where relief claimed not exceeding Rs,.j.25,000 and on complaints in criminal cases

1984 CLC 1189 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD RIAZ VS ALLAH YAR

— Ss. 7 (v) & 28-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 149 & O. VII, r. 11-Plaint not properly stamped not a valid document unless deficiency made good-Plaintiff not filing any application for extension of time and thoroughly negligent, contumacious and c

1984 CLC 1124 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

BHOLLA VS KHURSHID BIBI

–S. 7 (v) (a) read with Second Sched., Art. 16-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. V, r. 7-Court-fee-Alienation of ancestral land-Plaintiff praying for declaratory decree and seeking possession as alternative relief in prayer clause of plaint but in bod

1984 CLC 719 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ABDUL RASHID NIZAMI VS BUSHRA

–O. VII, r. 11-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7 (vi)-Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 15-Court-fee-Net profit Lower appellate Court failing to give specific finding on question as to whether controversy with regard to net profit was raised bona f

1984 MLD 497 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD HANIF VS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, LAHORE

—O.XLVII, rr.1 & 2 and S.151–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(v)-Court-fee payable, held, should be that which was payable on day of actual presentation off’ appeal and not on any earlier date.

1984 CLC 3164 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

GULZAR HUSSAIN AWAN VS AKBAR

—-Ss. 14 (2) & 30-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7-Deficiency of court-fee-Valuation correctly shown in plaint-Court-fee fixed being insufficient–Plaintiff explaining insufficiency of court-fee on his bona fide belief that court-fee fixed was suffici

1984 CLC 440 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ADAMJEE PAPER & BOARD MILLS LTD. VS MARITIME AGENCIES LTD

— S. 7-Court-fee-Court, held, not powerless to correct arbitrary valuation given by plaintiff and can direct plaintiff to correct valuation-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 149.

1983 SCMR 1135 SUPREME-COURT

MEHRAJ DIN VS MEHRAJ BIBI

—O. VII, r. 11 read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7(p)(c)Rejection of plaint-Trial Court directing plaintiff to pay court-fee as required under S. 7(v)(c) of Act and make up deficiency by fixed date-Plaintiff not furnishing any explanation for n

1983 PLD 383 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ABDUL GHAFOOR VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQ

7 & Sched. I, Art. 1-Suits, valuation of. The general practice that the law governing the value of suits is the same that has to be followed for valuing the appeals, except in certain specific cases and in cases where this principle cannot be applied, is now too well-known to be re-stated. This practice cannot blindly be adopted in all cases, as it admits of difficulty in many.

1983 CLC 3083 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ANWAR ALI VS BASHIR AHMAD

7 (v) read with Punjab Preemption Act (I of 1913), S. 21 and Notification No. 5487-78/1890/3T. 1, dated 9th July, 1978 Court-fee-Exemption-Court-fee on pre-emption suit is assessable. under cl. (v) of S. 7 of Court Fees Act, 1870, exemption granted under Notification dated 9th July, 1978, therefore, does not apply to such suits.

1983 CLC 2410 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD ZAMAN VS FATEH SHAH

7 (v)-Value of suit for possession of land for purpose of court-fees-Computation of-Civil Judge ordering to put market value of land as value of suit for purpose of court-fee-Respondent conceding such value of suit to be computed on basis of 15 times net profits of land during year next before presentation of plaint Order of Civil Judge set aside in view of concession.

1983 CLC 1685 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

A. JALIL VS SALAH-UD-DIN KHAN
2(e) -Arbitration Act, 1940 provides complete Code in itself for valuation for purposes of jurisdiction–Provisions of S. 7(x)(d), Court Fees Act, 1870 and Schedule to Rules framed under S. 3, Suits Valuation Act, 1887, no longer applicable.

1983 CLC 117 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS NAZAM-UD-DIN

7 (v) (vi) and First Sched., Art. 1-Relief sought in appeal restricted to value of improvements-Court-fee, in such case, to be paid with reference to amount of compensation on account of improvements sought to be increased or decreased-Value, including improvements, of subject-matter in dispute in appeal-Held, to determine court-fee payable.-[Appeal (civil)].

1983 PLD 103 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ABDUL GHAFU VS MUKHTAR ALI

7 (v) read with West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 4 (xvi)= `Net assets”- Definition-Pre-emption suit–Net profits arising from land during year next before date of presentation of plaint-Court-fee in such case to be 15 times of net profits-Punjab Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913), S. 15.

1983 PLD 382 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD SULAIMAN MALIK VS ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION OF CANADA

XX rr. 13 & 18-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7(4) (f )Administration suit-Court-fees-Whether stamp duty payable on a decree passed in an administration suit, it is, necessary to examine nature of administration suit and requirement of law charging stamp duty on ‘instrument of partition’.

1982 SCMR 575 SUPREME-COURT

KHURSBID AHMAD VS FAJAR ALI

——S. 3, Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)Pre-emption-Deficiency in court-fee-Trial Court passing a vague order for making up deficiency in court-fee a

1982 CLC 1411 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

KANIZ BIBI VS MUHAMMAD ALI

115 read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7 (v) (a) Revision-Court-fee-Contention that court-fee should have been assessed by trial Court on 15 times of net profit of land and not on sale price of disputed land-No evidence on record to show whether land actually cultivated during previous year or had been left fallow or Banjar-Such contention, held, had no force in circum stances of case.

1982 CLC 9 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

RASHID AHMED VS HAQ NAWAZ

Ss. 39 & 42 and Court Fees Act (VIII of 1870), S. 7(iv)(c)-Declaratory suit-Court-fee-Document requiring to be declared null and void before relief of declaration to right in property could be granted-Such suit for all intents and purposes, held, a suit for cancellation of such document requiring court-fee to be paid under S. 7 (iv)(c) of Court Fees Act, 1870.

1982 PLD 615 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

LAL DIN VS RASUL BIBI

7 (iv-A) (c)-Purpose-Provision of clause (iv-A) of S. 7 of Act, held, enacted with a view to discourage declaratory suits aimed at acquiring title to immovable property by avoiding expenses required to be incurred in connection with execution and registration of title deeds.

1982 CLC 1162 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS FAZAL MUHAMMAD

8 read with Court Fees Act (V (I of 1870), S. 7, CI. IV(c) and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, r. 11—-Suit for declaration and injunction-Valuation—Commissioner for Workmens’ Compensation awarding Rs. 14; 500 to employee for amputation of leg as result of accident and ordering Insurance Corporation to deposit came within ten days of order-Insurance Corporation filing suit for declaring such order to be illegal, void and without jurisdiction-Plaintiffs valuing suit for purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 26,000 for declaration and Rs. 200 for injunction-Held, in circumstances, award of Rs. 14,500 sought to be set aside and got rid of being subject-matter of suit value put by plaintiffs arbitrary acceptable and liable to be reviewed by Court in exercise of power under O. VII, r. 11, C. P. C.

1982 PLD 940 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MOOSA BHUNJI VS HASHWANI SALES & SERVICES LTD

Ss. 7(iv) (d) & 10-Valuations by Court-Court-fee, payment of Court, in cases where plaintiff entitled to put his own valuation, coming to conclusion of same having been arbitrarily fixed–Can put its own valuation and ask plaintiff to pay court-fee on such valuation.

1981 PLD 286 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

GHULAM RASUL VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

7 read with Sched. I, Art. 1-Suit for maintenance involving ascertained amount-Provisions of S. 7 applicable to such case and court-fee to be computed under Art. 1 of Sched. I.-[Maintenance).

1981 PLD 206 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ABDUL RAHIM VS KAREEM BAKHSH

Ss: 28 & 7 [as amended by Punjab Finance Act (XIV of 1973), S. 8]Court-fee-Appeal-Operation. of amendment-Not restricted to suits but equally applicable to appeals-Law governing valuation of suits generally followed for valuing appeals as well-Appeal arising out of suit instituted before amendment in law, held, to be valued according to amended law.=[Appeal (civil)–Court-fee-Interpretation of statutes].

1981 PLD 696 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS ZAHOOR ELAHI

7(iv)(c), (v) read with Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42Suit for declaration later amended to include relief of possession Valuation for purpose of court-fees-Relief of possession a consequence of declaration prayed for-Relief of possession not being available to plaintiff at time of filing suit and such relief sought during pendency of suit-Nature of suit, despite amendment, remaining declaratory-Held, provision of S. 7(iv)(c), Court Fees Act applicable to case.

1980 CLC 1878 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS AZRA PARVEEN

—–S. 7, cls. (iv) (c) & (v)`–Suit for declaration and consequential relief of possession–Suit valued at Rs. 72.50 (ten times land revenue) for purpose of court-fee–Court-fee of Rs. 30 (on basis of mesne profits of preceding year) paid on appeal–Cou

1980 PLD 145 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

AKBAR ALI VS EHSAN ELLAHI

Ss. 7(v) & 28 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, r. 11, Ss. 148 & 149 and Limitation Act (X of 1908), S. 3-Court-feeDeficiency, making up of-Respondent cunningly valuing his appeal or. basis of fifteen times of so-called net profits despite fact of suit land being uncultivated throughout and ceasing to yield any net profits-Such deliberate and wilful default on his part, held, disentitles respondent to any indulgence of a Court of law by way of enlargement of time for making up deficiency in court-fees so as to demolish defence of limitation accruing in meantime to appellants.

1980 CLC 589 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

SUBA KHAN VS REHMAT DIN

— S. 7(v) & (vi) [as amended by Punjab Finance Act (XIV of 1973) and Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)], S. 15-Court-fee-Net profits arising from land during year next before date of presenting plaint-Value for payment of court-fee: fifteen times of suc

1980 CLC 545 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN VS GHULAM FARID

— O. VII. r. 11 and Court Fees Act (VIL of 1870), Ss. 7 (iv) & (A 9 -& 10-Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 15-Court-fee-Ba,is for correct computation of court-fee not available until towards end of trial-Merely because plaintiff failed to file rele

1980 PLD 492 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

YOUSAF A. MITHA VS ABOO BAKER

7 (iv)(c) & Art. 17(iii) (1) & (2)-Defendants shareholders in alleged violation of an article of memo. of association of Company entering into agreement with defendant No. 3 for sale of their shares-Plaintiff on refusal of defendants to cancel a4reement filing suit praying for ration of such agreement Was illegal and for injunction restraining defendants from enforcing such agreement Suit, held, a suit for declaration with consequential relief and therefore covered by S. 7 (iv) and not Art. 17(iii) of Second Schedule

1979 SCMR 243 SUPREME-COURT

ABDUL SATTAR KHAN VS MUHAMMAD BAKHSH

— S. 149 read with Court Fees Act (VIII of 1870), S. 7(x)-Under valuation of court-fee, effect of-Principle of giving an opportunity for making good deficiency in court-fee within time, fixed by Court Applicable to a case of bona fide mistake or where fo

1979 CLC 867 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS AZRA PARVEEN

7 (iv-A)-Court-fee-Consequential relief-Suit for possession Suit for possession of land filed-Matter, held, would be governed by cl. (iv) of S. 7 and land to be valued at fifteen times of mesne profits or market value of land.-[Court-fee).

1978 PLD 716 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHMMAD ANWAR KHA VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI

7, pares. (i) & (ii)-Court-fees, computation of -Suit for prompt dower and for maintenance-A suit for an ascertained sum-Paragraph 1 of S. 7, hence, applicable-Claim for future maintenance Held, governed by para. (ii) of S. 7.

1978 PLD 1252 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

IQBAL BEGUM VS SH. ASHRAF PERVAIZ

7(iv)(a) – Declaratory suit – Determination whether a declaratory suit involves a right or title based upon gift-Plaint to be seen as a whole and not only relief clause-Plaintiff cannot escape liability to pay court-fee by omitting basis of his claim from relief clause.-[Court-fee]

1976 PLD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

SADAR DIN VS ELAHI BAKHSH

7, para. (v), cl. (c) -Pre-emption suit-Court-fees-Not to be computed on basis of market value of land but on fifteen times the net profits arising during year next before date of presentation of plaint-Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 21.-[Pre-emption].

1976 PLD 738 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

RAHIM BUX QADRI VS BASHIR AHMED

7(v)-Possession-Court-fee-Suit, valuation of-Suit for possession-Plaintiff to pay court-fee according to value of property subject matter of claim and not on rental basis.-[Court-fee].

1973 PLD 653 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

HAJI GUL VS MST. AISHA

Court Fees Act 1870 —–S. 7 (iv)(c), Sched I, Art. I & Sched. II, Art. 17(iii) – Suit for declaration and also for injunction-A suit for declaration with consequential relief-Governed by S. 7(iv)(c) and Art 1 of 1st Schedule and not by Art. 17(iii) of Second Schedule-Court fee to be paid according to value amount of relief sought-Not open to plaintiff to put arbitrary value on plaint-[Mian Karam Ilahi v. Muhammad Bashir and others P L D 1949 Lah. 8 ; Ghulam Qadir v. Messrs Balakimal & Sons P L D 1949 Lah. 461 and In re: Lakhmiamal A I R 1926 Mad. 96 dissented from.

1973 PLD 177 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL RAHMAN VS IFTIKHAR AHMED

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7(iv)(f) and West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), S. 18 – Suit for dissolution of Partnership and rendition of accounts-Defendant appealing against final decree (passed in suit) required to value his appeal ad valorem according to amount decreed and not according to valuation in plaint of suit-Suit for accounts tentatively valued at Rs. 200-Defendant entitled to challenge tentative value if it be arbitrary-No objection, however, raised and’ final decree in suit passed for Rs. 66,004.75-Defendant filing appeal against decree in Court of District Judge-Held, amount decreed in suit exceeded Rs. 25,000 and as such under S. 18 of Ordinance II of 1962 appeal lay direct to High Court and’ not in Court of District Judge.

1971 PLD 682 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7(iv)(d)(f ) read with Karachi Courts Order (2 of 1956), Cl. 4(2) and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, r. 11—Computation of Court fee payable in suits for accounts-Suit for rendition of accounts of waqf property and for mandatory injunction directing mutawalli to perform his duty—Plaintiff, held, could not be allowed to value his claim for relief, arbitrarily—Value of suit property more than Rs. 67,0?0 but plaintiff valuing his claim for injunction and accounts at Rs. 200 only—Valuation, held, fixed arbitrarily—Plaint not rejected but ordered to be returned to plaintiff for presentation to proper Court viz., High Court at Karachi and that Court, held, competent to determine proper valuation-[Ch. Muhammad Iqbal v. Mst. Ahmad Jaban P L D 1970 Kar. 548 dissented from.]

1970 PLD 548 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

CHOWDHRY MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS MST. AHMED JAHAN BEGUM

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7(iv)(f)-Suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts-Fact that averment made in plaint that plaintiff” contributed a particular sum as capital-Held, would not take case beyond purview of S. 7(iv)(f)Plaintiff” in such a case can fix value of suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction In his discretion under S. 7(iv)(f ) and not what he thinks may be awarded to him.

1969 PLD 175 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

THE PAKISTAN BOY SCOUTS ASSOCIATION VS QAZI MUHAMMAD SHARIF

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7-Accounts-Suit for Court-fee-Plaintiff at liberty to value suit for purposes of court fee; at any figure lie chooses-for purpose of choosing forum of appeal arising out of such suit, appellant to follow value put by plaintiff himself-Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S. 8.

1969 PLD 357 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT

ABDUL HAMID ALIAS MD. ABDUL HAMID VS DR. SADEQUE ALI AHMED

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7(iv)(c)-Suit for avoiding document to which plaintiff was party on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence-A suit for declaration with consequential relief – Ad valorem court fee, held, payable in circumstances.

1967 PLD 75 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD ASHIQ VS OKARA ZEMINDARA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD

(a) Court fees Act. (VII of 1870), S. 7(iv) (c)-Suit falling under S. 7(iv)(c) – Not among exceptions set out in S. 8, Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887)-Value of suit for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction must be same-Plaintiff himself to value relief sought.

1967 PLD 468 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMED SIDDIQ AND OTHERS VS HAJI AHMED & CO.

Court Fees Act 1870 —— S. 7(iv)(c)-Suit (before Karachi Bench) for declaration and injunction-Decree sought to be set-aside on ground of fraud, and permanent injunction claimed as consequential relief-Whether plaintiff has absolute discretion to put his own valuation on relief claimed.

1967 PLD 733 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

AISHA BAI VS USMAN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER

Court Fees Act 1870 —– S. 7 (iv) (c) & 17—-Declaratory suit-Plaintiff in addition to declaration praying for consequential relief-Case governed by S. 7(iv)(c)-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42.

1967 PLD 203 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT

TARACHAND MONDAL AND OTHERS VS HAZARI SHAIKH AND ANOTHER

42-Declaratory suit by plaintiff in possession of property that sale-deed executed by his benamidar not binding on him and praying further that defendants be restrained from interfering with his possession-Payment of fixed court fee as well as court fee for consequential relief prayed, viz. permanent injunction-Sufficient-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7(iv)(c) and Sch. 11, Art. 17(iii).

1967 PLD 164 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT

MONOHAR KHAN VS MST. MAMIN JAN BIBI AND ANOTHER

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7(iv)(c)-Ad valorem court fee-Prayers for (1) declaration of plaintiff’s title as owner of suit property and (2) declaration that defendant has no right, title or interest in suit property-Second prayer, held, a consequential relief to first prayer-Plaintiff liable to pay ad valorem court fee.

1967 PLD 113 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT

RAHMAT ALI VS MESSRS BENARES SILK INDUSTRIES

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7 (v), (xi), (xii).’Suit for possession of premises from Licence whose licence has been revoked-Valuation for purpose of court fee-Governed by el. (xii) and not by cl. (v) of S. 7–Plaintiff, himself tenant of another, allowing defendant to carry on business temporarily as his Licencee-Court fee to be paid according to value claimed in suit in accordance with provision of S. 7 (xii)–Case-law fully discussed.

1966 PLD 461 SUPREME-COURT

JAN MUHAMMAD VS ABDUL GHAFOOR

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7(vi)-Pre-emption suit-Suit falling under S. 7 (vi)-Value for purposes of jurisdiction-To be determined in accordance with Rules framed under S. 3, Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887)-Suit land partly subject to land revenue and partly comprising a garden-Value of suit for purpose of jurisdiction should be market value of garden plus thirty times land revenue assessed on rest of land-Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S. 3-Suits. Valuation Rules, rr. 3 & 1.

1966 PLD 1059 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MANSUR RAZA AND 4 OTHERS VS MST. SYRRIA BEGUM

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7(v)(b), (c), (d)-Land subject to fluctuating assessment-Court fees is payable under cl. (c) of S. 7(v).

1966 PLD 31 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

AZAD J. & K. GOVERNMENT VS SAYED MOHAMMAD YOUNIS SHAH GILLANI

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7 (xii) read with Sch. II, Art. 17 – Declaratory suit – Plaintiff alleging that the order terminating his services, being against law and Police rules, was void and inoperative and he continues to hold his post-Suit, held, one for declaration only, without any prayer for consequential relief-Plaintiff entitled to fix any value for purposes of jurisdiction.

1965 PLD 439 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT

DAIBAKILAL BASAK VS IQBAL AHMED QURAISHI

Ss. 42 & 39 and Court–Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7(iv)(c) & Sch. II, Art. 17(iii)Suit for bare declaration that document was forged void ab initio and of no legal consequence-Court-fees payable on such suit under Art. 17(iii), Sch. II of Court-Fees Act–Suit whether falls under S. 42 or S. 39 of Speck Relief Act, 1877-Plaintiff not necessarily to pray for consequential relief by way of cancellation of document-Plaintiff cannot be held to have made such a prayer by necessary implication.

1964 PLD 386 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ZAFAR AHMED VS ABDUL KHALIQ

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7(iv)(c)-Suit for setting aside decree alleged to have been obtained by fraud-Suit for declaration with consequential relief, falling within purview of S. 7(iv)(c).

1963 PLD 10 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

GHULAM RASOOL AND OTHERS VS THE STATE

—-S. 54 and Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 8 read with 7 (iv)(c) and Sch. II, Art. 17-Provision of S. 8, Court Fees Act, 1870 overrides general provisions of Sch. II, Art. 17 of the Act-Award of compensation under Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Court-fee

1962 PLD 28 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

MST. BIBI LAL BIBI VS MIR BALUCH KHAN AND ANOTHER

Court-fee on plaint -Plaintiff in “joint possession”-Court-fee of Rs. 10 enough-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7 (v).

1962 PLD 33 BAGHDAD-UL-JADID

GULLANGULLAN VS MUHAMMAD RAMZAN

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7 (v) (c)-Land assessed to land revenue but such revenue not fixed-Land, partly banjar, partly ghair mumkin and partly covered with trees-To be assessed for purpose of court fee “as a whole “-Land yielding profits-Cl. (c), held, applicable.

1961 PLD 349 SUPREME-COURT

AJIRUDDIN MONDAL AND ANOTHER VS RAHMAN FAKIR AND OTHERS

—–Sch. II, Art. 17 (v-a) read with S. 7 (vi-A) and with Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), Ss. 8 & 9-(East Pakistan cave)-Partition suit-Value for purposes of jurisdiction where plaintiff is in joint possession-Value of share of plaintiff (per majority

1961 PLD 298 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

H. IQBAL BEGUM, JUNIOR BEGUM, KHAIRPUR AND ANOTHER VS ABDUL SAMAD

Court.Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7, cls. (v) (e) & (ix) –“Market value” tit S. 7, cl. (i) (e) – Construction -Suit for possession by mortgagee-Market value of subject-matter is. vahre of property involved and not value of subject-matter of suit, namely, mortgagee’s interest in property-Such suit governed by cl. (v) (e) S. 7 and not by cl. (ix).

1960 PLD 327 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ALLAH BAKHSH VS SAID ALI SHAH

Court Fees Act 1870 —-S. 7 (v)-Valuation for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction as given in plaint admitted by defendants-Subsequent objection to valuation barred-Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S. 9.

1960 PLD 1088 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUMTAZ BEGUM VS CH. ZULFIQAR ALI

Court Fees Act 1870 Ss. 7 (v) and (vi)Pre-emption suit-To be treated on same footing as suit for possession.

1959 PLD 101 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN VS MUHAMMAD HASSAN AND OTHERS

Court Fees Act 1870 —–S. 7 (iv) (c) and Sch. II; Art. 17 (iii)- Declaratory suit-Averments in plaint to be taken as a whole to determine whether suit is with, or without consequential relief, though relief clause is couched in simple declaratory form–Suit for declaration that decree was obtained by fraud involving setting aside of decree-Suit, held to be one for declaration with consequential relief-Suit falls within purview of S. 7 (iv) (c).

1959 PLD 621 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND OTHERS VS MIAN NAZAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7 (iv),(c)-Cross-objections arising out of suits for declaration with consequential relief—Taxable ad valorem.

1959 PLD 802 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

IMAMUDDIN AND ANOTHER VS ABDUL GHANI

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7 (iv)-Plaintiff’s valuation of suit-Court has power to correct. The Courts have the right to correct the plaintiff’s valuation of suits falling within section 7 (iv) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Question as to what is the proper valuation depends upon the circumstances of each suit and the judicial discretion of the Court. It may be difficult for the Court to arrive at a correct valuation and that may well be a reason why the Court would not overrule the discretion which is initially at least vested in the plaintiff but in cases where the valuation is perfectly obvious on the face of it, it would be open to the Court to correct a clearly wrong valuation.

1958 PLD 465 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ALI HUSSAIN VS THE KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

Court Fees Act 1870 Sch. I, Art. 2 & S. 7 (v) (e)- Suit for possession of house-Court-fee on basis of half of the market value of house.

1957 PLD 126 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MST. WAZIR BEGUM VS HAJI ASHIQ HUSSAIN

Court Fees Act 1870 —-S. 7 (iv) (c)-Declaratory suit with consequential relief-Cancellation of document following from declaratory part of prayer-Court fees.

1957 PLD 785 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

SAHIBZADI MUMTAZ BEGUM VS MIRZA MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ALI

Court Fees Act 1870 ——S.7-(v) (b) (e)-Land, appurtenant to a house; not built upon ; and assessed to land revenue-Court-fees for suit for possession of such land to be paid according to land revenue under S. 7 (v) (b) and not according to market value under S. 7 (v) (e).

1956 PLD 1060 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD ZARIF VS ABDUL HAQ SETHI

Appeal-Forum-Preliminary decree directing taking of accounts in suit for dissolution of Partnership and rendition of accounts–Forum determined by value of suit fixed in plaint– Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7 (iv) (f).

1955 PLD 78 SINDH-CHIEF-COURT

M. ISPAHANI LTD VS HAJI MUHAMMAD SULTAN

—-Recovering possession of premises from transferee of tenant who had no right to transfer-Court fee to be paid under S. 7 (xi) and not under S. 7 (v).

1954 PLD 228 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

KARIM BAKHSH VS QADIR BAKHSH

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 149-Pre-emption suit-Value of land for purpose of court fee was to be computed in accordance with S. 7, o (c) Court Fees Act (VII of 1870) with reference to nett profits of previous year as disclosed by fard khalis munafa, Preparation of which was to be accomplished under order of Court-Extension of time-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0. VII, r. 11 (b).

1954 PLD 26 JUDICIAL-COMMISSIONER-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

CHAMAN DASS VS SHIL KHAN

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7 (iv) (c)-Suit for cancellation o) bond-Court-fees.

1954 PLD 37 JUDICIAL-COMMISSIONER-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN VS MANSHA KHAN

Court Fees Act 1870 S. 7 (iv) (f)-Valuation of relief sought may differ from approximate value which plaintiff is bound to state under O. VII, r. 2, C. P. C.

1952 PLD 41 SINDH-CHIEF-COURT

MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM VS MESSRS. EAST AND WEST STEAMSHIP CO

—–Equitable-Whether not subject to Court-fees-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VIII. r. 6 and O. XX, r. 19 (3) ; Schedule IV-Court-fee Act (III of 1870)), S, 7 (1), Schedule 1, Art. 1.

1952 PLD 495 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ABDUL HAFIZ VS SH. MUHAMMAD SADIQ

Court Fees Act 1870 —–S. 7 (iv) (c), Schedule II Art. 17 (iii)-Reliefs claimed : (1) Declaration that suit property is waqf (2) and (3) Declaration that certain alienations of suit property void against waqf (4) Declaration that a certain Limited Society’s order of forfeiture of certain shares included in waqf void and by way of consequential relief cancellation of such order-Held, Reliefs (1), (2), (3) simple independent declarations each covered by Art. 17 (iii) of Schedule II Relief (4); Declaration with consequential relief to be taxed for Court-fees under S. 7 (iv) (c)-Consequential relief.

1952 PLD 44 JUDICIAL-COMMISSIONERS-COURT-PESHAWAR

SAIN VS SHAH ASGHAR SHAH

—–Memorandum insufficiently stamped-Whether could not be rejected-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 207 (2) Normally Courts should not accept such memorandum-Court-fees Act VII of 1870, S. 6.

1950 PLD 62 BAGHDAD-UL-JADID

ABDUL GHAFOOR VS RAHMATULLA

Court Fees Act 1870 Court-fees Act (VII of 1870) S. 7, clause 6-Pre-emptipn suit Appeal by vendee challenging that plaintiff is not entitled to stilt land-Court-fee is to be computed in accordance with S 7, clause 6.

1949 PLD 461 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

GHULAM QADIR VS MESSRS. BULAQI MALL & SONS

Court Fees Act 1870 (a) Court-fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7 (iv) (c)-Suit for declaration that decrees were null and void and other consequential reliefs –Suit falls under section 7 (iv) (c).

1949 PLD 1 JUDICIAL-COMMISSIONER-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

SHARKAT-E-PUSHTOON LIMITED VS THE SECRETARY OF STATE

Court Fees Act 1870 As a rule the Court-fee is dependent not on the form of the pleadings, but on the real substance of the relief claimed. A suit though cast in the form of a declaratory relief only but in substance aiming at some substance relief, is, in my opinion, governed by section 7 iv (c) and not by Art. 17 (iii), Schedule II of the Court Fees Act.