Section 9 : Power to ascertain net profits or market value
1991 CLC 1375 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL GHANI VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
- 115 & O.XLI, R. 23 — Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.9 — Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199–Trial Court’s order not conforming to, but offending against order of remand — Effect — Revisional Court while passing remand order had directed Trial Court to calculate net profits inclusive of tenant’s share but exclusive of cost of cultivation — Trial Court while undertaking calculation of net profits had erroneously computed court-fee accruing from the entire holding and not one-third of such holding to which suit related —- Trial Court also did not deduct from profits cost of cultivation despite clear direction to that effect in remand order — Trial Court’s order being erroneous and offending against remand order was not sustainable and same was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect —- Case was remanded to Trial Court to determine afresh valuation of suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction.
1988 SCMR 505 SUPREME-COURT
AMAN ULLAH VS WAZIR ALI
—S.21–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss.9 & 10–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) , S .149 & O .VII , R .11–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)–Leave to appeal- -Pre-emption suit–Incorrect valuation for purposes of court-fee–Non-availability
1987 SCMR 1393 SUPREME-COURT
AHMAD KHAN VS MALLA
—S. 149, O. VII, R. 11–Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), Ss. 15 & 21 –Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9 A 10–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)–Pre-emption–Preferential right of tenant–Repugnancy to injunctions of Islam–Suit for pre-
1987 CLC 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
QADIR BAKHSH VS DISTRICT JUDGE
—O.VII, R. 11–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9, 10 & 28—Rejection of plaint–Requirement–Before a plaint could be rejected for non-payment of court-fees, Trial Court, held, would be required to determine, amount of court-fee payable on plaint, di
1986 MLD 2853 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SHAFI VS HUSSAIN BAKHSH
Court Fees Act 1870 —S.9–Deficiency in court-fee–Trial Court determined valuation of suit property for purposes of court-fee according to actual transfer price of same entered in transfer order of Authority which was not disproved by defendants–Defendants having failed to discharge burden to prove correct valuation of suit property by means of clear and cogent evidence, trial Court, held, had no reason to think that market value of suit property had been wrongly estimated–Consequential provisions contained in S.9, held further, would not come into effect in circumstances.
1985 SCMR 301 SUPREME-COURT
GULZAR HUSSAIN VS ABDUL RAHMAN,
—S.9–Question as to amount of court-fee payable not a question between parties but a matter between plaintiff and state–Fact whether defendant pressed issue of court-fee at trial or not, held, was immaterial.—S.9–Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913),
1985 SCMR 1209 SUPREME-COURT
MAHMOOD VS MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE
–Art. 185(3)–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 9–Punjab Pre-emption Act ( I of 1913), S. 21–Suit for pre-emption–Court-fees, deficiency of–Leave to appeal granted to examine, whether in view of law laid down earlier by Supreme Court, (i) failure of t
1985 SCMR 1207 SUPREME-COURT
SHUKARUD DIN VS JAN MUHAMMAD
—Art. 185(3)–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss.9 & 10–Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.21–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, r.11 & 5.149–Suit for pre-emption–Court-fees–Deficiency of-Incorrect statement of net profits for determination
1985 CLC 2966 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN VS PANU KHAN
—S. 3–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9 & 10–Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 30–Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S. 15-A—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 149–Pre-emption suit–Valuation- Fixation of–Court-fee–Deficiency–Opportunit
1985 CLC 2945 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SARDAR BEGUM VS JERMALE
—S. 149 and O. VII, r. 11–Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), Ss.4, 21 a 30–Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9, 10 & 12–Pre-emption suit–Rejection of plaint–Deficiency in court-fee–Making good of-Opportunity to–Held, it was obligatory for trial
1985 CLC 2846 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FATEH MUHAMMAD VS MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM
Court Fees Act 1870 —S. 9–Report of Commission on valuation of suit–Application for setting aside such report–Trial Court reserved judgment till decision of suit–Held, ordinarily question relating to court-fee valuation, should be determined and decided first and issue about court-fee should be treated as preliminary issue–Trial being ripe for final judgment, issues including issue about correct valuation having already been framed and case being appealable, High Court declined to exercise revisional jurisdiction in circumstances.
1984 PLD 289 SUPREME-COURT
SIDDIQUE KHAN VS ABDUL SHAKUR KHAN
- VII, r. 11, Ss, 148 & 149 read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 28-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 3 & 5 and Arts. 10 & 120-Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), Ss. 4, 21, 27 & 30-Court-tees-Deficiency, making up-Limitation-interpretation of O. VII, r. 11(b)(c), C. P. C.-Contentions (1) that decision of Supreme Court in case of Mst. Walayat Khatun P L D 1979 S C 821 and subsequent reported decisions by Supreme Court has led to conflict of authority, thus leading to confusion, for litigant public and Bar which needed to be resolved, (2) that Supreme Court in a Full Bench case of Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan P L D 1984 S C 157 has pointed out that case of Mst. Walayat Khatun : was authority and law declared only to extent of common ratio of two separate judgments, rendered therein-Held: (1) Decision in Mst. Walayat Khatuns case P L D 1979 S C 821 cannot be assumed to have dissented from Supreme Court judgments in Muhammad Nawaz Khans case P L D 1970 S C 37 and Shah Nawazs case 1972 S C
1984 PLD 157 SUPREME-COURT
SHAHNA KHA VS AULIA KHAN
Ss. 4, 21, 27 & 30-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9 & 10-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 10 & 120-Suit barred by limitation on account of supply of deficit court-fee-Plaintiff not required to obtain statement of net profits before filing suit for pre-emption -Failure of plaintiff to obtain statement of net profits will operate against him when considering question of entertaining court-fee, if same was supplied after institution of suit on, (or even without) objection from defendant or Court-Right of pre-emption established-Court cannot refuse such right in exercise of discretion-Piaintiff cannot be deprived of his right for mere lapse of time unless there had been abandonment, acquiescence or waiver or at least, an alteration in position of defendant in that other party has been put in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him, if remedy were afterwards to be asserted-
1984 PLD 101 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
ABDUL AZIZ VS MUHAMMAD HASSAN
XIV, rr. I & 2 and S. 115-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9 & 10-Dastoorul Amal Diwani (Kalat), S. 24-Court of Kazi-Valuation of suit-Jurisdiction-Procedure-Framing of issues-1-ailure of Kazi to decide issue regarding valuation of suit before proceeding with trial of case on all other issues-Effect -Whether case decided.[Jurisdiction].
1984 CLC 2284 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SANA ULLAH VS MUHAMMAD ANWAR ALI KHAN
— Ss. 9 & 10-Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 15-Court fee-Wrong estimate of net profits or market value by plaintiff–Court, held, could proceed to make its own estimate under sections 9 and 10 and give opportunity to plaintiff to make good defici
1984 CLC 1557 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AMIR BAKHSH VS WAHID BAKHSH
–Ss. 4, 21, 27 & 30-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9 & 10–Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 10 & 120-Civil Procedure Code (V Of 1908) O. VII, r. I1-Non-making up of deficiency in court-fees within time — Effect – Question of limitation would arise
1983 CLC 2517 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD RAFI VS BATOOLAN BIBI
Ss. 9 & 10-Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 21 and Civil Procedure Code (fit of 1908), O. VII, r. 11-Valuation–Suit for possession by pre-emption- Situation of suit for purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction fixed by respondent as also .amount of court-fee paid on plaint admitted by appellants to be correct in their written statement–No mala fides, held, could be presumed on part of respondent nor he could be branded with charge of commission of contumacious negligence in matter of payment of court-fee-Case not being of positive mala fide penalty of rejection of plaint, held further, not warranted.
1983 PLD 215 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SALIM VS INAYATULLAH
Ss. 9 & 10-Scope of Ss. 10 (1) & 11-Words “require” and “The Court shall require the plaintiff to pay so much additional fee as would have been payable, had the suit net profits. been rightly estimated” Interpretation and meaning.-[Interpretation of statutes].
1983 CLC 1502 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SUKMAN KHAN VS NAZAR KHAN
— Ss. 9, 10 & 29 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, r. 11 read with Ss. 148 & 149-Court fee-Deficiency—Appellant failing to avail opportunity allowed by appellate Court to properly work out net profits accruing immediately preceding suit and
1983 CLC 1256 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SIKANDAR KHAN VS SHAN MUHAMMAD
9-West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 4(16)Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 4, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115 and Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3-Court-fee-Preemption suit-Valuation-Court-fee not paid by petitioner and his suit becoming liable to be dismissed on point. -of limitation-Petitioner provided with statement of gross profits -Question that statement of net profits not supplied to him by Tehsildar, held,- not at all helpful to petitioner as he could fix his own valuation at his risk even if statement of net profits not supplied to him and he thought statement of gross profits not conforming to S. 4 (16). Land Revenue Act, 1967 -Ground for extension of time not made out -Section 4 (16) can be helpful to one who himself tries to compute net profits and it is then that where side or Court can get same inquired into if necessary-Petitioner not doing so, held, cannot rely on S. 9, Court Fees .Act in circumstances.
1983 CLC 993 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FAZAL BEGUM VS MUHAMMAD DIN
Ss. 28, 9 & 10 – Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 4Court-fees-Deficiency- Evaluation for purpose of court-fee Power and discretion of trial court-Subjected to law and sound judicial principles in light of judgment of Supreme Court if any on point-Determination of case, held, will not turn on power under S. 28 read with Ss. 9 and 10 but on manner in which power has been exercised in a case which would become barred by time if no such order was passed.
1983 CLC 109 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD WARYAM VS SHAHNAZ MASOOD
Ss. 9 and 10 and Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 15Court-fee-Suit for pre-emption-Ordering investigation for ascertaining market value or net profit-Not incumbent upon Court-No investigation under S. 9 ordered provision of S. 10, held, not attracted.
1982 CLC 639 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD KHAN VS MALI
- VII, r. 11 read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9 & 10Court-fee-Deficiency-Respondents failing to give explanation as to why copies of khasra girdawari and statement of net profits not obtained alongwith copies of mutation-Respondents given ample time to file statement of net profits and make good deficiency in court=fee but such opportunity not utilized-Affidavit of Patwari or any other writing not produced to substantiate plea that Patwari was busy in connection with his official work-Conduct of respondents, held, speaks volumes of their negligence and contumacy-Trial Court justified in making order for rejection of plaint.-[Plaint-Court-feel.
1981 PLD 371 SUPREME-COURT
FATEH MUHAMMAD VS ABDUL GHANI
Ss. 9 & 10-Deficiency in court-fee-Investigation-Contention that Court under S. 1.0 must first order investigation to be made for determining net profits or market value and could order payment of additional court-fee only after such investigation-Held: Not correct-Words “such investigation” in first line of S. 10.–Make reference to investigation ordered to be held under S. 9 and investigation could be ordered only under such section-Provision of S. 10 consequently not attracted at all where no investigation ordered under S. 9.-jCourt-fee-Interpretation of statutes].
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 CLC 186 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
JAN MUHAMMAD VS SHUKARUDDIN
-.- O. VII, r. 11 read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9, 10 & 28–Rejection of plaint-Court not specifying requisite stamp papers to be supplied by plaintiff but leaving matter in general terms, to makeup deficiency in court-fee in hands of plaint
1979 CLC 705 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MASOOD AKHTAR SHAH VS FAZAL AHMAD
- VII, r. 11(b) read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9 & 10-Fee found incorrect-Court has inherent power to call upon plaintiff to satisfy it about valuation-Plaintiffs ordered and given opportunity to correct valuation and affix proper court-fees but plaintiffs failing to affix such court-fees-Plaints rejected.
[Court-fee]
0. VII, r. 11(b) read with Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9 & 10-Fee found incorrect-Court has inherent power to call upon plaintiff to satisfy it about valuation-Plaintiffs ordered and given opportunity to correct valuation and affix proper court-fees but plaintiffs failing to affix such court-fees-Plaints rejected.
[Court-fee]
1979 CLC 414 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM HAIDER VS NOOR MUHAMMAD
Ss. 9 & 10-Suit, valuation of-Deficient court-fee -Trial Court only ordering plaintiff to file statement of net profits by a fixed date so as to enable determination of correct court-fee-No direction, however, given for supply of court-fee by fixed date Order of trial Court dismissing respondent’s suit on ground of non-payment of court-fee in time, held, misdirected.-[Court-fee].
1967 PLD 154 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
BAHADAR SHAH VS SHARAF
(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, rr. 1(i) & 11-Court-fee-Valuation-Statement in plaint to be accepted unless proved to contrary-Suit not valued correctly due to wrong estimation of annual profits of suit land-Court to proceed under Ss. 9 & 10, Court Fees Act (VII of 1870).