Updated: Tuesday May 08, 2012/AthThulatha Jamada El Thaniah 17, 1433/Mangalavara Vaisakha 18, 1934, at 08:33:25 PM

The Court Fees’ Act, 1870

 

ACT No. VII of 1870

 

11th March, 1870

Preamble:--

Court Decisions

Scope and object of Act - Object of Court Fees Act, 1870, is to secure revenue for the benefit of the State and provisions thereof, are not to be used for non Suiting a party on account of some technical/procedural defect/omission. P L D 1993 Lah.90 + P L D 1975 Kar. 59, PLD 1985 Lah.448

Court Fees Act as its very title suggests was passed to secure revenues for the State and it was never its purpose to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality against his opponent--Parties must win or lose their cases on substantial grounds and not 'technical tortures' and the Courts cannot be abettors- -Remand of case for hearing de novo and decision afresh would involve the parties into purposeless and wasteful vortex litigation. 1987 C L C 2428 + 1984 C L C 3428 

Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam-Payment of court‑fee on plaints, memorandums of appeal etc. was declared to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam by Federal Shariat Court which decision was subject‑matter of appeal before Supreme Court-High Court, in Revisional Jurisdiction, could not implement decision of Federal Shariat Court in the matter of repugnancy of provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870, and Suits Valuation Act, 1887, unless S.C. wherein appeal against said decision was pending confirmed the decision-High Court is not empowered to declare any provision of any Add to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam as such Jurisdiction exclusively vests in Federal Shariat Court‑So long as provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870, are on the statute book and are not declared un‑Islamic by the Supreme Court, plaintiff’s, applicants and appellants will have to pay court‑fee in the law Courts. 1993 C L C 706

Bashir and 3 others v. The State PLD 1991 SC 1145; Allah Dad v. Mukhtar and others 1992 SCMR 1273; Mirza Qamar Raza v. Mst. Tahira Begum and others PLD 1988 Kar.169; Allah Banda v. Mst. Khurshid Bibi 1990 CLC 1683; liJaz Haroon v. Inam Durrani PLD 1989 Kar. 304; Fores v. Cochrane 107 ER 450; Encyclopaedia Tritianica p. 232; Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali and others PLD 1988 SC 287; Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kar. v. Messrs Fakir Cotton Ginning Ltd. PLD 1991 SC 280; Haji Khurshid Ahmad v. Salabat Ali ADJ, Sahiwal 1992 CLC 2270; Hakim Khan and 3 others v. Government of Pakistan and others PLD 1992 SC 64; Messrs Mumtaz Industries v. Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan through Manager and others 1991 MLD 863; Massu and 27 others v. United Bank Limited and another 1990 MLD 2304 and Mirza Daud Beg v. Additional District Judge 1987 SCMR 1161 ref.

Separation of law of court-fees from Civil Procedure Code, notwithstanding Judicial exercise, through legislative intervention, desired by S.C. with further observation that law of limitation if at all to be introduced in relation of court-fees has to be done clearly and specifically in law on that subject. Act like other fiscal statutes to be construed strictly and in favour of subject-Object of Act to secure revenue for benefit of State and not to arm litigant with weapon of technicality to harass his opponent. P L D 1984 S.C . 289

Rachappa Subrao v. Shidappa Venkatrao A I R 1918 P C 188;

Muhammau Sharif v. Mst. Natho P L D 1965 Lab. 686 and Sharaf Faridl v. M. S. Shahani P L D 1975 Kar. 59 ref.

             Review application. Review application, was required to be stamped with half of - Court-fee determined by Trial Court as leviable on plaint-Where review application was deficient of Court-fee, opportunity to make up same was to be afforded to defaulting part before penalizing him--High Court directed petitioner to make good deficiency in court-fee by a specified date failing which same was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 1987 M L D 70

CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY

1. Short title etc.--- This Act may be called the Court‑fees Act, 1870.  

            Extent of Act,: It Extends to the whole of Pakistan.

Commencement of Act. And it shall come into force on the first day of April, 1870. 

I--A Definition of “Appropriate Government”.--- In this Act “the Appropriate Government” means, in relation to fees or stamps relating to documents presented or to be presented before any officer serving under the Central Gov­ernment, that Government, and in relation to any other fees or stamps, the Provincial Government.

2. [Replead].--- Section. 2 Rep. By the A. O., 1937 

CHAPTER -- II Fees in the High Court

3. Levy of fees in High Courts on their original sides.--- The fees payable for the time being to the clerks and officers (other than the sheriff s and attorneys) of the High Courts;

Or chargeable in each of such Courts under No. 11 of the first, and Nos. 7, 12, 14, 20 and 21 of the second schedule to this Act annexed;

shall be collected in manner hereinafter appearing. 

Court Decisions

Purpose and object - All fees to be collected by stamps which should be impressed or adhesive or partly impressed and partly adhesive. No document which had to bear stamp could be of any validity unless and until properly stamped. No document requiring stamp should be filed or acted upon in any proceedings until stamp had been cancelled. Stamps being manifestation of court- fees as having been paid. Plaintiff s by depositing amount for purchasing stamps with treasury and getting endorsement on Challan to that effect that stamps were not available, held, did whatever was within their power in circumstances. 61ein purpose of court- fees being to secure revenue to State, deposit of requisite money for purchase of stamp by plaintiff s should be deemed to have satisfied requirement of Court Fees Act, 1870. Failure to supply requisite stamps within time could not be placed upon plaintiff s in circumstances. 1985 C L C 1969 

Court-fee on Suits in High Court - Question falls under S. 3-Word “payable” in cl. 1 of S. 3-Means payable under some provision of law other than Court Fees Act, 1870. P L D 1975 Kar. 944 

S. 3 (as amended by Adaptation of Central Acts and Ordinances Order, 1949)Practice re payment of Court fees, in original  Suits, and in appeals, prevailing in Chief Court of Sind, at time of amendment-Continued intact by adap­tation.

Held, that if, in the Chief Court of Sind, at the time of the amendment of section 3, Court Fees Act, 1870, by the Adaptation of Central Acts and Ordinances Order, 1949, Court-fee was, for the time being, payable in original  Suits, and in appeals from such  Suits, that practice and position was preserved on the language of section 3 as it stood after the adaptation of 1949. P L D 1961 (W. P.) Kar. 565

Krishna Mohan Sinha v. Raghunandan Pandey A I R 1925 Pat. 392; C. Abdul Hakim Sahib and another v. Chattanadha Iyer and others A I R 1931 Mad. 457 and H. Mahomed Ishack Sahib v. Mahomed Moideen and another 45 Mad. 849 ref.

Har Dayal Shah etc. v. The Secretary of State for India-in-­Council A I R 1923 Lah. 275 and Raghubar Singh and others v. Jethu Mahlon A I R 1922 Pat. 13 considered.

Deficiency-Appellant assisted by counsel. Plea of illiteracy of little avail and ignorance of law amending Court Fees Act, held, no excuse.

Appellant exhibiting culpable and gross negligence in matter of payment of court-fees and when thinking of making up deficiency period of limitation for filing appeal already run out. Valuable right thus accruing to respondents, held, could not be taken away from them in absence of sufficient cause for not paying proper court- fees in time. 1981 C L C 1715  P L D 1979 S C 821 rel. 

Levy of court-fees-Suits instituted in Sind High Court on original side-As things stand presently no court-fee, held, payable on such suits and plaintiff not to suffer consequences even if Supreme Court holds otherwise or law amended retrospectively.-[Interpretation of statutes. P L D 1980 Kar. 492 

Alternate relief for specified damages claimed by plaintiff in his suit against defendant. Plaintiff having prayed for alternate decree for specified amount as damages, his application to allow him to pay additional court-fee was allowed and he was allowed to pay additional court-fee in view of his alternate prayer and to amend his plaint in terms thereof. 1997 C L C 1301 

S. 3 (as amended by Adaptation of Central Acts and Ordinances Order, 1949).Practice re-payment of Court fees, in original suits, and in appeals, prevailing in Chief Court of Sind, at time of amendment. Continued intact by adap­tation.

Held, that if, in the Chief Court of Sind, at the time of the amendment of section 3, Court Fees Act, 1870, by the Adaptation of Central Acts and Ordinances Order, 1949, Court- fees was, for the time being, payable in original suits, and in appeals from such suits, that practice and position was preserved on the language of section 3 as it stood after the adaptation of 1949. P L D 1961 (W. P.) Kar. 565

    Opportunity to make up deficiency. Petitioners failing to make up deficiency in court- fees although given three opportunities to do so. Valuable right having in meantime accrued to opposite party he could not be deprived of such right on account of petitioner's lack of diligence and care in prosecution of their appeal. 1974 S C M R 364

S. 3-Levy of court-fees Suits instituted in Sind High Court on original side-As things stand presently no court-fee, held, payable on such Suits and plaintiff not to suffer consequences even if S.C. holds otherwise or law amended retrospectively. P L D 1980 Kar. 492

P. L D 1975 Kar. 944 fol. 

The expression “Courts hereinbefore mentioned” in section 6 refers to the Courts specified in section 3, and the Courts specified in section 3, as it now stands after a succession of amendments, are the High Courts; there­fore section 6 draws a distinction between High Courts and all subordinate Courts. Court-fees on  Suits and appeals in all subordinate Courts have to be paid under section 6 at the rate prescribed in the schedule to the Court Fees Act, whilst the fees on  Suits and appeals in the High Courts are governed by the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Court Fees Act. Appeals in High Court do not fall under section 3. They fall under the third clause of section 4, and, as an appeal is a document specified in both the Schedules of the Court Fees Act, it is clear that court-fees under the Court Fees Act are payable on all appeals in the High Court, unless they fall within the excep­tion created by the word S in brackets in this clause. PLD 1975 Kar. 944

4. Fees on documents filed, etc., in High Courts in their extraordinary jurisdiction.--- No document of any of the kinds specified in the first or second schedule to the Act annexed, as chargeable with fees; shall be filed, exhibited or recorded in, or shall be received or furnished by, any of the 1[***] High Courts in any case coming before such Court in the exercise of its extraordinary original civil jurisdiction;

or in the exercise of its extraordinary original criminal jurisdic­tion;

in their appellate jurisdiction ; or in the exercise of its jurisdiction as regards appeals from the 2[judgments (other than judgments passed in the exercise of the ordinary original Civil Jurisdiction of the Court) of one] or more Judges of the said Court, or of a division Court;

            as Courts of reference and revision: or in the exercise of its jurisdiction as regards appeals from the Courts subject to its superintendence;

 Or in the exercise of its jurisdiction as a Court of reference or revision;

            unless in respect of such document there be paid a fee of an amount not less than that indicated by either of the said schedules as the proper fee for such document.

Legal Amendments

1.          The word “said” omitted by Ordinance 21 of 1960, s. 3 and 2nd Sch. (with effect from the 14th October, 1955).

2.          Subs. by the Court‑fees (Amendment) Act, 1922 (19 of 1922), s. 2, for “judgment of two”. 

Court Decisions

            Word “original” in expression “ordinary original civil Jurisdiction”-Refers to Jurisdiction of Court to decide matter as a Court of first instance  Suit decided by High Court - Decided in exercise of its original Jurisdiction.

The word “original”, can only refer to the Jurisdiction of a Court to decide a matter as a Court of first instance; therefore this means that a Suit decided by the High Court is decided in the exercise of its original Jurisdic­tion, Just as a constitutional petition is decided in the exercise of its original Jurisdiction. And Word “ordinary” in expression “ordinary original civil Jurisdiction”-'Means regular, normal, customary, 'usual, not exceptional ­ Suits filed as of right on original side of High Court-Filed in ordinary original civil Jurisdiction. P L D 1975 Kar. 944

Concerned Officers of Lah. High Court will accept plaints, written statements, pleadings, set-offs or counter-claims, memoranda of appeals or cross objections presented Or filed in Lah. High Court Lah. with court fees affixed on such documents payable under Court Fee Act, 1870 (as applicable to Punjab. Province) ignoring the amendment by Sections 4 and 6 of Punjab Finance Act, 1996, as if these two sections were not enacted; Similar directive was also issued to all courts subordinate to Lah. High Court, Lah. and exercising civil Jurisdiction.    P.L.J.1997 Lah. 1089 = PLD 1997 Lah. 434 = NLR 1997 Civil 677. 

Exception in cl.3 of S.4-Applies to appeals against Judgments “passed in exercise of ordinary original civil Jurisdiction” of High Court-Term wider than “appeals against Judgments in  Suits filed on original civil side of Court”-Appeals against Judgments passed in exercise of High Court's ordinary original civil Jurisdiction-Not liable to levy of court­ fees under Court Fees Act, 1870- P L D 1975 Kar. 944

Firdaus Trading Corporation v. Japan Cotton & General Trading Company Ltd. P L D 1961 Kar. 565 dissented from.

Ahmad Khan v. The Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court of West Pakistan P L D 1968 S C 171; Mumtaz Khan v. The Chief Settlement do Rehabilitation Commissioner and another P L D 1966 S C 276; Har Dayal Shah v. The Secretary of State for India in Council I L R 3 Lah. 4201 Raghubar Singh v. Sethu Mahton 1922 C W N 88; Satalvad on The Common Law in India, p. 19; Asad Ali and 9 others v. The Settlement & Claims Commissioner, Kar. and another P L D 1974 Kar. 345 and Ganpat v. Premsingh 15 I C 122 rel.

Elias Dadla Khan v. Mahfooz Shah A I R 1946 Sind 86 and Patricia Anne Patel v. Gerald Cowling Patel P L D 1972 Kar. 444 ref.

C. Abdul Hakim Sahib and another v. Chattandha lyer and others A I R 1931 Mad. 457; H. Mahomed Ishack Saheb v. Mahomed Moldeen and another I L R 45 Mad.- 849 and Krishna Mohan Sinha v. Raghunandan Pandey A I R. 1925 Pat. 392 held not applicable.

S. 4.Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 96. 

Appeal against decree based on award.Court cannot entertain memorandum of appeal upon which proper amount of Court Fee has not been paid. P L D 1987 Quetta 33

P L D 1953 B J 45; P L D 1972 Kar. 103; P L D 1970 Kar. 295; A I R 1929 All. 75; A I R 1927 Lah. 884 and A I R 1929 Nag. 294 ref. 

Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam-Provisions of sections 4, 6, 7 and 35 read with Schedules I & II of Court-Fees Act, 1870, Section 8 read with Schedules IV & V of Punjab Finance Act, 1973, Punjab Ordinance, 1981 (amending Courts Fees Act), SIndh Finance Act, 1990, Baluchistan Finance (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 and relevant provisions of NWFP Finance Act/Ordinance, and any other provisions in Central and Provincial Statutes relating to charging fees on ad valorem basis or market value of subject-matter, are repugnant to Injunctions of Islam. Held further: However, fixed Court fee on application,  Suits and appeals where a nominal Court-fee has been fixed in Statutes, will remain intact as they are not only reasonable but within reach of a common man.  P.L.J.1992  F SC1.

Decision of FSC has been challenged in the supreme court, till the decision of SC High Court has no Jurisdiction to declare provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870 (a fiscal statute) as un-Islamic and void which was the exclusive Jurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court. 1994 M L D 1210

Hakim Khan and 3 others v. Government of Pakistan and others PLD 1992 SC 595; Messrs Mumtaz Industries v. Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan through Manager and another 1991 MLD 863; Massu and 27 others v. United Bank Limited and another 1990 MLD 2304; Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kar. v. Messrs Fakir Cotton Ginning and Pressing Industries Limited, Gambat and another PLD 1991 SC 280; Allah Dad v. Mukhtar and others 1992 SCMR 1273 and Mirza Daud Beg v. Additional District Judge 1987 SCMR 1161 ref.

The expression “Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction” is not so much a description of any particular class of Courts, as a designation thereof. This jurisdiction is distinct from the ordinary .civil jurisdiction of the High, Court. The original civil jurisdiction possessed by the Chief Court of Sind was nothing more than the District Court jurisdiction.

Neither the Chief Court of Sind was a District Court nor could any of its Judges be called District Judges because under section 219 of the Government of India Act the Chief Court of Sind was a High Court. But what was the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by it in respect of original civil jurisdiction in the Civil District of Kar.. On the language of section 8 of Sind Courts Act; 1926 and the definition of “District” in section 2 (4) of the Civil Procedure Code, the Chief Court was exercising District Court jurisdiction in contradistinction from the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court. The mere fact that the Sind Chief Court later on was included within the definition of High Court under section 219 of the Government of India Act, did not change the nature of this jurisdiction.

Although in the Government of India Act, Judicial Commissioner's Court in Sind was deemed to be a .High Court in civil matters it continued as District Court. In the Sind Courts Act, 1926, instead of treating the Chief Court of Sind as District Court, it was designated as the principal Court of original civil jurisdiction. Thus the same position was maintained and it was not enacted that it will have ordinary original civil jurisdiction within the limits of Kar. and also did not change the 'nature of the jurisdiction in civil matters.

The West Pakistan High Court under the Letters Patent possessed no ordinary civil jurisdiction. So far as the ordinary civil jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned, if it is given to a High Court it must be given to the whole Court.

Merely because a matter originates in the High Court, unless so described in the Letters Patent or any other enactment, it cannot be treated as being dealt with in the exercise of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court.

If, however, such judgment was not a judgment under the “ordinary” 'original civil jurisdiction of the West Pakistan High Court, Kar. Bench, as it is not, then the question of exemption of section 4 does not arise. P L D 1961 (W. P.) Kar. 565

View taken in the case of Firdous Trading Corporation v. Japan Cotton and General Trading Co. Ltd. P L D 1961 Kar. 565 stated the correct position of law in that respect. 1991 S C M R 920

Firdous Trading Corporation v. Japan Cotton and General Trading Co. Ltd. P L D 1961 Kar. 565 approved

          Value of suit for purpose of court-fee assessed by the appellant/plaintiff had been changed by Trial Court-Effect-Where the valuation of the suit fixed by the plaintiff had been changed by Trial Court valuation for appeal would be the one fixed by the Trial Court. 1999 M L D 985

          Legality and vires of orders passed by Courts below directing payment of court-fees were challenged on the ground that provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870,

requiring payment of court-fee on pleadings in suit as also on memorandum of appeal having been declared to be against Injunctions of Islam by Federal Shariat Court in Mahmood-ur-Rehman Faisal's case PLD 1992 F SC 195(1), orders in question, were illegal and without jurisdiction and the relevant law being un-Islamic had ceased to remain in force-Validity-Effect of judgment of Federal Shariat Court having been suspended by the Appellate Shariat Bench of Supreme Court provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870, were still on the statute book-Orders passed by Courts below requiring payment of court-fee on suit and memorandum of appeal could not be deemed to be illegal and thus, could not be set aside in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. PLD 1994 SC 1145 + 1994 M L D 1210 1992 SCMR 1273; PLD 1988 Kar.169; 1990 CLC 1683; PLD 1989 Kar. 304; PLD 1988 SC 287; PLD 1991 SC 280 and 1992 CLC 2270 ref.

            Jurisdiction-High Court has no jurisdiction to declare provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870 (a fiscal statute) as un-Islamic and void which was the exclusive jurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court.

 1994 M L D 1210

          Dismissal of appeal due to deficient Court-fee Appellate Court did not allow at least one opportunity to appellant to make good deficiency in Court-fee-Legality of-Appellants being consciously aware of decree for specified amount having been passed against them, should have filed their memorandum of appeal with Court-fee sufficient to cover the amount decreed; yet in view of rule laid down by Supreme Court in Siddique Khan's case reported as PLD 1984 SC 289, Appellate Court should have allowed at least one opportunity to appellants to make good the deficiency-Appellant, having not been afforded such opportunity were entitled to the remand of their appeal for the grant of one opportunity at least-Judgment of High Court was set aside, appeal was remanded to Appellate

Court for disposal regarding question of Court-fee, in accordance with Supreme Court judgment reported as PLD 1984 SC 289 and further disposal of appeal thereafter as required by law.

1990 S C M R 1723

        Deficiency in court-fees-Making up of Deficiency in court-fees payable at trial stage discovered during appeal-Party to be allowed time to supply deficiency even at appeal stage-Proceedings have to be stayed till payment of proper fee Contumacy at that stage only, shall ensue consequences like that of non-prosecution as provided under S. 10(ii), Court Fees Act, 1870 subject to further extension of time under S. 148, C. P. C. and only than plaint can be dismissed on account of such non-compliance with order of appellate Court-Section 28, Court Fees Act, 1870 or for that matter other relevant provisions would remain subject to O. VII, r. 11(c), C. P. C. to be applied in mandatory sense-Court on discovery of deficiency in court-fees, shall as an obligation, direct party concerned to supply said deficiency within time to be specified and on party's failure to do so, of course subject to other provisions of law in that behalf, shall have to reject plaint or appeal as case may be. 

P L D 1984 S. C. 289

Where Application made in 1967 to sue as pauper refused-On application dated 12th September, 1970 plaintiff granted on 7th October., 1974 one month to pay court-fee subject to all Just exceptions --.Applicant paying court-'fee at rate prevailing under law as it stood in 1967-Held,, court--fee paid at scale chargeable on date of institution of application under O. XXXIII, rr. I & 2 proper subject to decision of payable Court as to when proceedings of  Suit to be deemed com­menced and court-fee would- be according to law then prevalent-Quaerre, when plaint in such case deemed to have been instituted. 1983 C L C 2594

       Grant of time to make up deficiency-Combined effect of O. VII, r. 11 and S. 149, C. P. C.-Court must first grant time to make up deficiency -Party failing to comply-Court can reject plaint at any stage of suit or receive fee afterwards.

Value of appeal being more than Rs. 1,000 appeal could be heard by Division Bench only-Single Judge, held, could not reject appeal on ground of insufficiency of court-fee.  1980 C L C 1124

Opportunity to make up deficiency. Petitioners failing to make up deficiency in court- fees although given three opportunities to do so. Valuable right having in meantime accrued to opposite party he could not be deprived of such right on account of petitioner's lack of diligence and care in prosecution of their appeal­ Petition dismissed. 1974 S C M R 364

Jurisdiction of High Court-Legality and vires of orders passed by Courts below directing payment of court-fees were challenged on the ground that provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870, requiring payment of court-fee on pleadings in suit as also on memorandum of appeal having been declared to be against Injunctions of Islam by Federal Shariat Court in Mahmood-ur-Rehman Faisal's case PLD 1992 F SC 195(1), orders in question, were illegal and without jurisdiction and the relevant law being un-Islamic had ceased to remain in force-Validity-Effect of judgment of Federal Shariat Court having been suspended by the Appellate Shariat Bench of Supreme Court provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870, were still on the statute book-Orders passed by Courts below requiring payment of court-fee on suit and memorandum of appeal could not be deemed to be illegal and thus, could not be set aside in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. 1994 M L D 1210

5. Procedure in case of difference as to necessity or amount of fee.--- When any difference arises between the officer whose duty it is to see that any fee is paid under this Chapter and any suitor or attorney, as to the necessity of paying a fee or the amount there­of, the question shall, when the difference arises in any of the 1[****] High Courts, be referred to the taxing‑officer, whose decision thereon shall be final, except when the question is, in his opinion, one of general importance, in which case he shall refer it to the final decision of the Chief Justice of such High Court, or of such Judge of the High Court as the Chief Justice shall appoint either generally or specially in this behalf.

            The Chief Justice shall declare who shall be taxing‑officer within the meaning of the first paragraph of this section.

Legal Amendments

1.         The word “said” omitted by the Central Laws (Statute Reform) Ordinance, 1960 (21 of 19(0), s. 3 and 2nd Sch. (with effect from the 14th October, 1955). 

Court Decisions

Under section 5 of the Court- fees Act though the Chief Justice of the High Court is empowered to declare as to who shall be the Taxing Officer there is nothing therein which requires that he must necessarily be an officer of the High Court itself. All that can, therefore, be said is that the Taxing Officer is a statutory persona designata nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court.

The Taxing Officer under this section is not even a Court and certainly not an officer to whom the High Court can be said to have delegated any of its functions, for, the Court- fees Act does not say that the High Court or such officer as may be appointed in that behalf by the High Court shall, in the event of any difference arising between the Stamp Reporter and any suitor, refer the question to the High Court. The Taxing Officer is, therefore, clearly an officer nominated by the statute to determine a particular class of questions and in doing so he does not act as a deputy for a Judge or a Bench of the High Court before which the case is to come up for hearing.

Under the constitutional provisions, from 1861 up to the Constitution of Pakistan (1962) the “High Court” means and has always meant the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court. The meaning to be given to the word “High Court” in sub-Article (5) of Article 98 must, therefore, be that which has been provided by the Constitution itself in Article 242 read with the provisions of Article 91. The Registrar when acting as a Taxing Officer under section 5 of the Court- fees  Act is not the Court itself within the meaning of sub-Article (5) of Article 98 of the Constitution. The order of the Registrar under section 5 of the Court- fees Act is not an order of the High Court itself so as to make a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution filed for challenging his order passed in a capacity different from that of an officer of the Court under the rules of the Court, not maintainable. P L D 1966 S. C. 753

            Review application. Requisite Court-fee. Review application, held, was required to be stamped with half of - Court-fee determined by Trial Court as leviable on plaint-Where review application was deficient of Court-fee, opportunity to make up same was to be afforded to defaulting part before penalising him--High Court directed petitioner to make good deficiency in court-fee by a specified date failing which same was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 1987 M L D 70 

Reference by Taxing Officer. Shall be either to “Chief Justice of High Court” or to “Judge of the High Court as the Chief Justice shall appoint either generally or specially in this behalf”. Judge not so appointed but otherwise competent to dispose of matter .Held, in circumstances of case, competent to decide reference made direct to him.

P L D 1966 (W. P.) Kar. 42

Provision of Chapter II, Court Fees Act, 1870 which deals with the fees in the High courts did not enjoin adjournment of case for enabling party to pay court-fee--Order of Taxing Officer which was passed under S.5 of the Act was final and could not ordinarily be upset even by Court and party concerned had to comply with the same--Appellants having failed to avail even grace period allowed to them by Taxing Officer, though stricto senso the same was not supported by any provision of law, memo of appeal was rejected in circumstances. 1991CLC1655

TeJ Ram, etc. v. Maqbul Shah, etc. A I R 1928 Lah. 370; Mrs. Momtaz Malik v. The Taxing Officer (Registrar, High Court), etc P L D 1966 S C 753; Siddique Khan etc. v. Abdul Shakur Khan etc. P L D 1984 S C 289; Chief Inspector of Stamps, U.P. Allahabad v. Mrs. Panzy Feruandas, Major widow of H. Jhonson A I R 1964 All. 66; BriJbhukhan, etc. v. Tota Ram, etc. A I R 1929 All. 75; Shri Krishna v. Sm. Saraswati Devi A I R (37) 1950 All. 499; S.WaJid Ali v. Mt. Isar Bani Urf Isar Fatma A I R (38) All. 64 and Atmaram v. Singhai Kasturchand A I R 1930 Nag. 224 ref

CHAPTER -- III Fees in other courts and in public offices

6. Fees on documents filed, etc., in Mufassal Courts or in public offices.--- Except in the Courts hereinbefore mentioned, no docu­ment of any of the kinds specified as chargeable in the first or second schedule to this Act annexed shall be filed, exhibited or recorded in any Court of Justice, or shall be received or furnished by any public officer, unless in respect of such document there be paid a fee of an amount not less than that indicated by either of the said schedules as the proper fee for such document.

Court Decisions

Unless required amount of court‑fee chargeable on document (which term includes plaint also) as was indicated in schedules, was not paid, it shall not be taken to be of any validity Such rule however, does not lead to a necessary corollary that the plaint which was not adequately stamped was not a 'proper plaint' at all in the eyes ‑of law and further that for the limitation purposes  Suit shall be deemed to have been instituted only when proper and required court‑fee was paid on it. 1987 C L C 2428

Court-fees on suits and appeals in subordinate Courts-To be paid under S. 6 at rates prescribed in Schedules-Court-fees on suits and appeals in High Courts-Governed by S. 3 only, appeals falling under S. 4, cl. 3.

Section 6 draws a distinction between High Courts and all subordinate Courts. Court-fees on suits and appeals in all subordinate Courts have to be paid under section 6 at the rate prescribed in the schedule to the Court Fees Act, whilst the fees on suits and appeals in the High Courts are governed by the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Court Fees Act. Appeals in High Court do not fall under section 3. They fall under the third clause of section 4, and, as an appeal is a document specified in both the Schedules of the Court Fees Act, it is clear that court-fees under the Court Fees Act are payable on all appeals in the High Court, unless they fall within the excep­tion created by the words in brackets in this clause. P L D 1975 Kar. 944

Original civil Jurisdiction in respect of civil suits in Kar. was not conferred on the High Court as a whole but only to the Bench at Kar. The nature of this jurisdiction is clarified under para. 7 of Part A of the Schedule of Kar. Courts Order, 1956. In sub-clause (4) of para. 7, which replaces the original section 45 of the Sind Courts Act, 1926, it is provided that all decrees an4 orders in suits and proceeding wherein the subject­ matter in amount or value does not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees, or such sum as the Central Government may by order under the proviso to subsection (2) of section 22 prescribe, passed before the appointed day, by the Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan at Kar. functioning or exercising the powers and per­ forming the duties as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction shall be deemed for the purpose of execution to have been passed by the District Court of Kar. The Lah. High Court never possessed any ordinary original civil jurisdiction and under the Letters Patent of that Court which is applicable in this case none is conferred on the West Pakistan High Court. The scheme of the Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955, clearly shows that as a special measure the Kar. Bench was allowed to continue to perform the duties of the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in Kar., which is a special jurisdiction and by no stretch of argument can it be considered as the ordinary original Civil jurisdiction of the West Pakistan High Court as is generally known. The history of the establishment of the High Courts in this sub-continent shows that there were only three Courts upon which was conferred ordinary original civil jurisdiction within certain limits under their Letters Patent. No other High Court established under the High Courts Act of 1861 or under the Government of India Act, 1915 or under the Government of India Act, 1935 was invested with powers of ordinary civil jurisdiction. The Chief Court of Sind was no doubt a

High Court within the meaning of section 219 of the Government of India Act, but the jurisdiction which it exercised in the Civil District of Kar. was not that of an ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court but it was only performing the duties of the principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction within the district of Kar. under a special statute viz., section 8 of Sind Courts Act, 1926.

The expression “Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction” is not so much a description of any particular class of Courts, as a designation thereof. This jurisdiction is distinct from the ordinary .civil jurisdiction of the High, Court. The original civil jurisdiction possessed by the Chief Court of Sind was nothing more than the District Court jurisdiction. So far as the ordinary civil jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned, if it is given to a High Court it must be given to the whole Court.

Merely because a matter originates in the High Court, unless so described in the Letters Patent or any other enactment, it cannot be treated as being dealt with in the exercise of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court.

No change has been effected by the establishment of West Pakistan High Court in respect of civil suits entertained on the original side of the Kar. Bench. The jurisdiction exercised in such matters is a District Court jurisdiction and since it is exercised by the High Court it may be called special original civil jurisdiction or extraordinary original civil jurisdiction, but certainly cannot be described as ordinary original civil jurisdic­tion of the High Court. The position, therefore, finally is that Court- fees was ding payable on an appeal from a Single Judge a of the Kar. Bench of the West Pakistan High Court inasmuch as the earlier position was continued intact by virtue of section 10 (1), Establishment of ton & West Pakistan Act, 1955. The charging section was section 3 of the Federal Court Fees Act, 1870, read with section 6, if it was assumed for argument's sake,, that such judgment was passed under the “ordinary” original civil jurisdiction of the Bench.

If, however, such judgment was not a judgment under the “ordinary” 'original civil jurisdiction of the West Pakistan High Court, Kar. Bench, as it is not, then the question of exemption of section 4 does not arise. P L D 1961 (W. P.) Kar. 565

Jurisdiction Repugnancy to Injunctions of Islam-Jurisdiction-High Court has no jurisdiction to declare provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870 (a fiscal statute) as un-Islamic and void which was the exclusive jurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court.  1994 M L D 1210

Pauper Application made sue as pauper refused. plaintiff granted on 7th October., 1974 one month to pay court- fees  subject to all just exceptions Applicant paying court-fee at rate prevailing under taw as it stood in 1967.Held,, court- fees  paid at scale chargeable on date of institution of application under O. XXXIII, rr. I & 2 proper subject to decision of Court as to when proceedings of suit to be deemed com­menced and court- fees would be payable according to law then prevalent. 1983 C L C 2594.

A I R 1960 S C 980 and Mooraj A I R 1924 Cal. 731 ref.

Legality and vires of orders passed by Courts below directing payment of court-fees were challenged on the ground that provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870, requiring payment of court-fee on pleadings in suit as also on memorandum of appeal having been declared to be against Injunctions of Islam by Federal Shariat Court in Mahmood-ur-Rehman Faisal's case PLD 1992 F SC 195(1), orders in question, were illegal and without jurisdiction and the relevant law being un-Islamic had ceased to remain in force-Validity-Effect of judgment of Federal Shariat Court having been suspended by the Appellate Shariat Bench of Supreme Court provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870, were still on the statute book-Orders passed by Courts below requiring payment of court-fee on suit and memorandum of appeal could not be deemed to be illegal and thus, could not be set aside in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.

1994 M L D 1210

Memorandum of appeal to be filed before District Court falls under Sched.1, Art.1, Court Fees Act, 1870 and court- fees  is payable ad valorem on the subject-matter of dispute.

Ordinarily a plaint in a suit for maintenance falls under section 7(i) and (ii) of the Court Fees Act and attracts ad valorem court- fees on the amount claimed to be computed in accordance with Article 1 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act. But section 19 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, alters the law contained in the Court Fees Act, 1870 to the extent that the court- fees to be paid on any plaint filed before a Family Court shall be Rs.15 (in the Punjab). The concession with regard to the reduction in the court- fees is restricted only to the “plaint”, and not to a “memorandum of appeal”. The omission of “memorandum of appeal” in this section is significant because both a “plaint” and a “memorandum of appeal” are included in Article 1 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act as attracting ad valorem court- fees. The express mention of one implies the exclusion of the other (expressio unius, est exclusio alterius). The Legislature intended to exclude from the purview of section 19 of the Family Courts Act the “memorandum of appeal” and confined the concession with regard to payment of court- fees only on a “plaint”.

A Family Court is a “Court of Justice”, to which the Court Fees Act would apply in terms of section 6 thereof. The Family Court is a Civil Court and despite the exclusion of the Civil Procedure Code and the Evidence Act in their application to proceedings before the Family Court it is a judicial Court in every sense. The appeal was filed before the Additional District Judge, under section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, and the said Court is a Civil Court. Thus, a “memorandum of appeal” to be filed before the District Court falls under Article 1 of Schedule I of the Court Act and the court- fees  in such cases is payable ad valorem on the subject-matter of the dispute. 1987 S C M R 1161

Under valued Suit-Dismissed as time-barred for non-payment of court-fee-High Court took view that although specific valuation was not placed but substantial court-fee was paid on plaint as filed and

that it was a case of calculation made by one party as against a different calculation made by other, set aside judgment and remanded case--Order impugned-­Supreme Court, held, that issue involved was no longer open for consideration--Correctness of impugned judgment being unexceptionable and appeal being time-barred was dismissed.

 1986 S C M R 1272

Limitation - Leave to appeal granted to ascertain correctness of approach of High Court arming dismissal of preemption suit as time-barred on two main considerations : (1) Failure of plaintiff to ascertain correct amount of net profits within period of limitation, and (2) sup,)ly of requisite court-fee (alongwith application made in that behalf) about a month after institution of suit.

Certain amount of court-fee, if and when adjudged, as proper fee as was visualised by S. 6, Court Fees Act, 1870 result would follow as provided in Ss. 10(ii), 12(ii) & 28 of Court Fees Act, 1870 and not as provided in S. 3, Limitation Act, 1908Validity mentioned in Ss. 10(ii), 12(ii) & 28, Court Fees Act, 1870 was vis-à-vis fiscal requirement (and consequences) as a measure of . prosecution of lis and not regarding physical institution of a document by act of presentation --Question of limitation arises if after determining “proper” court-fee document was returned and time was allowed for fresh presentation of same (after supply, of deficiency) and same was not refiled within specific period.

P L D 1984 S. C. 157

Trial Court failing to frame issue as to deposit of one-fifth amount and court-fee despite fact that parties at variance on face of plaint and written statement and proceeding to decide application for rejection of plaint from pleading to argument without evidence proper-Order of rejection, held, cannot be sustained as trial Court committed breach of procedural law and exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity. P L D 1983 Lah. 253

Plaint without proper court- fees .Plaintiff dispossessed on 20th September, 1978 .Suit under S. 9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 filed without proper court- fees  on 21st February, 1979.Making up of deficiency of court- fees  ordered from time to time and finally of 26th May, 1979, one week's time given but plaintiff filing court- fees  on 13111 June, 1979.Held, presentation of plaint not proper in eye of law and suit became time-barred. 1982 C L C 2248

Duty of Court. Mere, fact of defendant having not pressed question of 'deficiency in court- fees  at trial, held, does not relieve Court of obligation of looking into matter, determining correct amount of court- fees , and seeing deficiency made up. P L D 1981 S. C. 489

Enlargement of time. Memorandum of appeal insufficiently stamped- Appellant making no effort to make up deficiency within period of limitation and showing no cause for extension of time, held, appeal could be deemed to be filed only when and on day deficiency of court- fees  made up. P L D 1981 Lah. 293

Court- fee.-- Interest pendente-lite allowed or disallowed by trial Court up to date of decree. Such interest ascertainable . Ad valorem court fee to be paid for amount of interest up to the date of appeal. Appellant claiming reduction in interest awarded by trial Court. Must pay court fee on amount of reduction claimed.

Court- fees is leviable on sums which can be ascertained with certainty but not on those which cannot. Consequently, as a general rule, court- fees  on a plaint is payable on interest claimed up to the date of suit but not beyond. No court- fees, therefore, is required on account of the claim for interest from the institu­tion of the suit until payment. The position, however, is quite different when once the suit has been decreed and an appeal is preferred with regard to the pendente-lite interest allowed or disallowed up to the date of the decree. In such a case the claim for this interest is ascertainable and, therefore, ad valorem court-­fee must be paid under Article 1, Schedule I for the amount in appeal as pendente- lite interest which was allowed or disallowed by the trial Court. A I R 1933 Lah. 941 and A I R 1931 All. 351 ref.

Section 6 of the Court Fees Act, authorizes the levy of court­-fee and according, to this section no Court of justice is to entertain a document unless in respect of such a document there has been paid a fee

of an amount not less than that indicated by either of the Schedule to the Act as the proper fee for such a document. Article 1 of Schedule I deals with memorandum of appeals and directs that unless it is otherwise provided for, court- fees  must be paid ad valorem on the value of the subject-­matter in dispute. In the case of appeals that can only mean, the dispute in appeal. Where the appellant claims that the interest awarded be reduced on calculation at the rate of 4% per annum, he must pay the court- fees  on the amount by which he seeks the decree to be reduced, because the same is the subject-matter of the appeal. P L D 1966 (W. P.) Lah. 1

A I R 1937 Pesh. 3 and A I R 1947 Lah. 40 ref.

Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115), para. 25(7)Unless required amount of court-fee chargeable on document (which term includes plaint also) as was indicated in schedules, was not paid, it shall not be taken to be of any validity Such rule however, does not lead to a necessary corollary that the plaint which was not adequately stamped was not a 'proper plaint' at all in the eyes -of law and further that for the limitation purposes  Suit shall be deemed to have been instituted only when proper and required court-fee was paid on it. 1987 C L C 2428

Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another P L D 1984 SC 289 ref.

7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits.--- The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows:‑ 

(i).        For Money In suits for money (including suits for damages or com­pensation, or arrears of maintenance of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically) according to the amount claimed 

(ii).       for maintenance and annuities

In suits for maintenance and annuities or other sums payable periodically‑according to the value of the subject‑matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be ten times the amount claimed to be payable for one year: 

(iii).      For other moveable property having a market‑value; In suits for moveable property other than money, where the subject‑matter has a market‑value‑according to such value at the date of presenting the plaint. 

(iv).      In suits

(a)        for moveable property of no market‑value; for moveable property where the subject‑matter has no market‑value, as, for instance, in the case of documents relating to title, 

(b)        to enforce a right to share in joint family property;  to enforce the right to share in any property on the ground that it is joint family property, 

(c)        for a declaratory decree and consequential relief; to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, 

(d)        for an injunction;  to obtain an injunction, 

(e)        for easements;  for a right to some benefit (not herein otherwise provided for) to arise out of land, and 

(f)         for accounts; for accounts

­according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. 

in all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought,

Court Decisions

Value of Suit in a Suit for declaration has to be determined on the basis of relief claimed for but if the value placed by the plaintiff in the plaint is arbitrary, same is rectifiable by exercising the power of review by the Trial Court under O. VII, R.11, C. P. C. -In absence of any such review or determination, the value of Suit given by plaintiff in the plaint is to be taken as the basis for conferring pecuniary Jurisdiction on Trial Court as well as on the Appellate Court. 2001 Y L R 1435

Ali Muhammad alias Ali Ahmad and others v. Mahbub Ahmad and others 1987 SCMR 1263; Elahi Bakhsh v. Bilqees Begum PLD 1985 SC 393; Messrs State Life Insurance Corporation and others v. Fazal Muhammad and others 1982 CLC 1162; Muhammad Zafar v. Yousaf Ahsan PLD 1987 Lah. 512; Micro Electronics International (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Sohail Ahmad and 5 others 1995 CLC 1874; Messrs Suleman & Co. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others 1990 CLC 2183 and Sardar Din v. Elahi Bakhsh and others PLD- 1976 Lah. 1 rel.

Terms “market value” and “value of the property” as used in Ss. 7(v) & 7(iv)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. Gift deed was subject-matter of declaratory  Suit-Value of the  Suit property mentioned in the deed was Rs. 40,000 whereas market value of the property was Rs. 2,50,000. Lower Appellate Court, in exercise of  Revisional Jurisdiction, directed the plaintiff to affix court-fee according to market value of the property-Validity-Word “value” appearing in S.7(iv)of Court Fees Act, 1870, was referable to the document/transaction which was made basis for claiming a declaratory decree-Value recorded in document of .gift was “value of the property” within meaning of s.7(iv)of the Colin Fees Act, 1870-Lower Appellate Court exceeded its Jurisdiction by directing the plaintiff to pay court-fee which was not otherwise required by law to be paid-Order of the Lower Appellate Court was set aside in circumstances. P L D 2001 Lah.3

PLD 1985 Lah.112 ref.

Where Plaintiff in his Suit had sought a declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of Suit land and also that gift deed and the sale-deed in favour of respondents were illegal, ineffective and inoperative against his rights Said relief flew from declaration itself Suit filed by plaintiff fell under S.7(iv)of Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Sched. II, Art. 17(iii) of said Act. 2000 M L D 1611

Muhammad Suleman and another v. Javed Iqbal and others PLD 1985 SC (AJ&K) 1; Mst. Nasim. Akhtar v. Muhammad Sabeel and another PLD 1991 AJ&K 66 and Ghulam Hussain Shah v. Hidayat Ullah Khan PLD 1981 SC' (AJ&K) 55 ref.

Rendition of accounts: Ordinarily, it is not possible for the Court at a preliminary stage to determine the value of the relief in a Suit for accounts simpliciter. If the Court is itself unable to say what the correct valuation of the relief is, it cannot require the plaintiff to correct the valuation that has been made by him. Indeed, in a Suit for accounts it is also difficult for the Court to come to a finding even as to the approximate correct valuation of the relief. In such a case, the Court has no other alternative than to accept plaintiff s valuation tentatively. Of course, when there is an objective standard of valuation, to put a valuation on the relief ignoring such objective standard, might be a demonstratively arbitrary and unreasonable valuation and the Court would be entitled to interfere in the matter.

So far as the Suits coming under section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act are concerned the Legislature has left the question of valuation of the relief sought in the plaint or memorandum of appeal to the plaintiff. The reason is obvious. The stilts which arc mentioned tinder section 7(iv) are of such nature that it is difficult to lay down any standard of valuation. Indeed, the Legislature has not laid down any standard of valuation in the Court Fees Act. Under section 9 of the  Suits Valuation Act, the High Court may, with the previous sanction of the Provincial Government frame rules for the Suits referred to in section 7 (iv) of the Court Fees Act. Although the Punjab High Court has framed rules under section 9 of the  Suits Valuation Act such rules do not lay down any standard of valuation with regard to  Suits coming under section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act tinder rule 4(i) of the Punjab High Court Rules, the value of  Suit for accounts for purposes of court-fee will be as determined by the Court Fees Act, which means that the valuation of the relief will have to he made by the plaintiff under section 7(iv)(1) of the Court Fees Act. In a Suit for accounts it is almost impossible for the plaintiff to value the relief correctly. So long as the account is not taken, the plaintiff cannot say what amount, if at all, would be found due to him on such actual accounting. The plaintiff may think that a huge amount would be found due to him, but upon actual accounting it may be found that nothing is due to the plaintiff. A  Suit for accounts is filed with the fond hope that .on accounting a substantial amount would be found due to the plaintiff. But the relief cannot be valued on such hope, surmise or conjecture.

In this connection, the provision of Order VII, Rule 11of the C.P.C. which provided inter alia, that the plaint shall be rejected where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so may be referred to. It is manifestly clear from that provision that a Court has to come to a finding that the relief claimed has been undervalued, which necessarily means that the Court is able to decide and specify proper and correct valuation of the relief and. after determination of the correct value of the relief, requires the plaintiff to correct-his valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court. If the plaintiff does not correct the valuation within the time allowed the plaint is liable to the rejected. The question is whether in a Suit for accounts simpliciter, the Court can come to a finding as to the proper and correct value of the relief until the final determination is made. 1989 M L D 1125

A I R 1988S C 1150; A I R 1987 S C 2085; A I R 1979 S C 989; I L R 2 Delhi 491; A I R 1958 S C 2.15; A 1 R 1940 Cal. 482; A I R 1939 Pat. 572; A I R 1938 Cal. 161 and A I R 1935 Lah. 689 ref:

But, Tentative valuation given by plaintiff should not be arbitrary and unreasonable.

It is true that in a Suit for accounts the plaintiff is not obliged to state the exact amount which would result after taking all the accounts and he may, therefore, put a tentative valuation upon the Suit, but he is not permitted to choose an unreasonable and arbitrary figure for that purpose. In a Suit for accounts the correct amount payable by one party to the other can be ascertained only when the accounts are examined and it is not possible to give an accurate valuation of the claim at the inception of the Suit. The plaintiff is, therefore, allowed to give his own tentative valuation. Ordinarily the Court shall not examine the correctness of the valuation chosen, but the plaintiff cannot act arbitrarily in this matter. If a plaintiff chooses whimsically a ridiculous figure it is tantamount to not exercising his right in this regard. In such a case it is not only open to the Court but its duty to reject such a valuation. 1989 M L D 2150  While according to an other view Plaintiff is at liberty to value  Suit for purposes of court fee; at any figure he chooses-for purpose of choosing forum of appeal arising out of such  Suit, appellant to follow value put by plaintiff himself.  Suits Valuation Act, 1887, S. 8.

Where plaintiff sued the defendant for rupees four lacs payable on rendition of accounts and valued the Suit for purposes of court­-fee at the fixed rate of Rs. 15 and fixed the value for purposes of Jurisdiction at Rs. 200. The defendant applied under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for stay of the Suit but the request was dismissed by Senior Civil Judge. The defendant filed appeal to High Court under section 39, Arbitration Act. It was argued by the plaintiff that since the value of the original Suit was less than Rs. 2J0 for purposes of Jurisdiction the appeal against the dismissal of application under section 31, Arbitration Act would lie to the District Judge in view of section 18, Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962: Held, for the purpose of choosing the forum of appeal the appellant in Suit for accounts is to be guided only by the value for purposes of Jurisdiction, which has been put by the plaintiff. The value for the purposes of Jurisdiction as fixed by the plaintiff at Rs. 200 is to be taken into consideration for choosing the forum of the appeal. As such an appeal under section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, lies to the Court of District Judge. P L D 1969 Pesh. 175

Johurmull Parasram and others v. Louis D Reyfus & Co. Ltd. A I R 1949 Cal. 179 ; Muhammad Hussain v. Alanshah Khan and another P L D 1954 Bal. 37 ; Atma Ram-Charan Das v. Bisheshar Nath-Dina Nath A I R 1935 Lah. 689; A. K. A. C. T. V. Chidamba­rain Chettiar v. A. L. P. R. S. Muthia Chettiar A I R 1937 Rang. 320 and Malik Feroze Din and others v. Malik Muhammad Din A I R 1937 Lah. 694 ref. 

Gift deed was subject-matter of declaratory  Suit-Value of the  Suit property mentioned in the deed was Rs.40,000 whereas market value of the property was Rs.2,50,000-Lower Appellate Court, in exercise of  Revisional Jurisdiction, directed the plaintiff to affix court-fee according to market value of the property-Validity-Word “value” appearing in S.7(iv)of Court Fees Act, 1870, was referable to the document/transaction which was made basis for claiming a declaratory decree-Value recorded in document of .gift was “value of the property” within meaning of S.7(iv)of the Colin Fees Act, 1870-Lower Appellate Court exceeded its Jurisdiction by directing the plaintiff to pay court-fee which was not otherwise required by law to be paid-Order of the Lower Appellate Court was set aside in circumstances. P L D 2001 Lah. 3

Bashir Ahmad v. Mushtaq Ahmad PLD 1985 Lah. 112 ref.

Material date for such valuation--Objection raised by the defendant was that the plaintiff had undervalued the  Suit as the subject-matter of the  Suit was in excess of Rs.5 lacs and the Trial Court had no Jurisdiction to proceed--Validity--For the purpose of valuation of the  Suit and payment of court-fees, the material date for the valuation under S.7 of Court Fees Act, 1870, was the date of institution of the  Suit--Value of the subject-matter of the  Suit at the time of institution was not in excess of Rs.five lacs and the Trial Court had Jurisdiction to proceed with the matter-­Objection raised by defendant was overruled. P L D 2001 Kar. 1

            Suit for Pre­-emption --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 plaintiff s for payment of any more court-fee--No question of limitation was involved where plaintiff s 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.

Rachappa Subrao Jadhav Desai v. Shidappa Venkatrao Jadhav, Desai AIR 1918 PC 188 and PLD 1984 SC 289 rel.

Suit for rendition of account-­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) 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 returned 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 C L C 1598

Muhammad Ramzan and another v. Nazir Ahmad and 2 others 1979 CLC 95 and Megh RaJ v. Rupchand Uttand Chand AIR 1946 Lah. 280 ref. 

            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--Plaintiff s could no more be permitted to give their own valuation to the relief s to enforce their right to share Joint property after promulgation of sindh Finance Act, 1974. P L D 1990 Kar. 328

Mst. Shahjehan Begum v. Muhammad Siddique and others PLD 1971 Kar. 920; Mohammad Sharif v. Mst. Natho and another PLD 1965 Lah. 686; Mst. Bibi Lal Bibi v. Mir Baluch Khan and another PLD 1962 Quetta 28; AJiruddin Mondal and another v. Rahman Faqir and others PLD 1961 SC 349; Lakhomal and others v. Duepchand and others PLD 1937 Sindh 241; Imamuddin v. Abdul Ghani PLD 1959. Kar. 802; Z. Zafar Ahmed v. Abdul Khaliq PLD 1964 Kar. 386; Muhammad Siddiq and others v. HaJi Ahmed & Co. PLD 1967 Kar. 468; Bad Rul Islam v. Qamarul Islam and others PLD 1971 Kar. 682; HaJi Gul v. Aishia PLD 1973 Kar. 653; Diwanchand v. Dhani Ram AIR 1941 Lah. 123 and Hiranand Deomal v. MuriJmal Kundanmal and others AIR 1945 Sindh 128 ref.

            Suit for declaration with injunction‑ A  Suit for declaration with consequential relief‑Governed by S. 7(iv)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‑P L D 1973 Kar. 653

A I R 1937 Sind 241; P L D 1967 Kar. 468 ; A I R 1953 Cal. 34 ; A I R 1937 Nag. 6; P L D 1967 Dacca 164 rel.

P L D 1949 Lab. 8; P L D 1949 Lah. 461 and A I R 1926 Mad. 96 dissented from.

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 any property‑Said  Suit would fall under S.7(iv)of Court Fees Act, 1870, read with Sched. II, Art. 17(IIl) of said Act-Where specific relief claimed in a declaratory  Suit was either surplusage or consequential relief same would flow from original relief of declaration claimed in plaint and  Suit would thus fall under Sched. II, Art.17(iii) of Court Fees Act, 1870, but if consequential relief was not outcome of original declaratory relief then  Suit would fall out of ambit of abovesaid provisions of law-Plaintiff in his  Suit had asked for a declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of  Suit land and had prayed for a further relief that gift deed anale‑deed were illegal and ineffective on his right, said further relief would flow from declaration‑Said  Suit would fall under S.7(iv)of Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Sched. II, Art. 17(111) of the said Act. 2000 M L D 1611

 PLD 1991 Azad J & K 66 ref.

Suit for declaration and cancellation of agreement. Court-fee. Court is to take into consideration plaint as a whole and 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)of Court Fees Act, 1877. 1986 C L C 123

A I R 1937 Sind 241; P L D 1967 Kar. 458; A I R 1933 Sind 53; P L D 1959 Pesh. 101; S. P L D 1964 Kar. 386; P L D 1965 Dacca 439 and P L D 1969 Dacca 357 ref.

Such Suit for landed property has to be valued on its market price and would be covered by provisions of s.7(iv), Court Fees Act, 1870. 1995 M L D 45

As an order rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C. P. C. is a decree for the purpose of filing of an appeal, it must follow that it is also a decree for the purpose of the Court-Fees Act and, therefore, ad valorem court-fee is to be paid unless the Court-Fees Act is amended. 1988 C L C 1462

            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)of court-fees Act, 1870, Section 7(iv), court-fees Act, 1870, therefore, would not be applicable in circumstances. 1986 C L C 2057 

(v).       for possession of lands, houses and gardens; In suits for the possession of land, houses and gardens‑

according to the value of the subject‑matter; and such value shall be deemed to be-­

Where the subject‑matter is land, and‑

(a)        where the land forms and entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Govern­ment,

or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Collector's register as separately assessed with such revenue,

and such revenue is permanently settlement times the revenue so payable,

(b)        where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Govern­ment, or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid;

and such revenue is settled, but not permanent-­five times the revenue so payable:---

(c)        where the land pays no such revenue, or has been partially exempted from such payment, or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such revenue,

and net profits have arisen from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint ­fifteen times, such net profits;

but where no such nett profits have arisen there from ­the amount at which the Court shall estimate the land with reference to the value of similar land in the neighbourhood

(d)        where the land forms part of an estate paying re­venue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed as above‑mentioned‑the market‑value of the land;

Explanation.‑The word “estate” as used in this para­graph means any land subject to the payment of revenue, for which the proprietor or farmer or raiyat shall have executed a separate engagement to Government, or which, in the absence of such engagement, shall have been separately assessed with revenue;

e)         For houses and gardens; where the subject‑matter is a house or garden ­according to the market‑value of the house or garden;

Court Decisions

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. Evidence on record had proved that  Suit land was not assessed to separate revenue and nothing was on record on basis of which it could be said that the land was paying revenue or it was exempted from payment of revenue and was charged with fixed payment in lieu of such revenue-­Nothing was available on record on basis of which it could be said that net profits had arisen from the land during year next and before filing of  Suit--Value for purposes of Jurisdiction of Court, thus, would be market value of land and value for purposes of court­-fee would be fixed under S.7(v)of Court Fees Act, 1870, according to value of similar land in neighbourhood--Plaintiff in his plaint had himself asserted that market value of  Suit land for purposes of court fee and Jurisdiction of Court was Rs.70,000--Trial Court being competent to hear  Suits to the extent of value of Rs.25,000, it had no Jurisdiction to entertain the  Suit--Decree passed by Trial Court, was, thus, without Jurisdiction. 1999 Y L R 2668

AIR 1930 Lah. 182 ref.

In the case the land is assessed to land revenue the court-fee is computed under clauses 7(v) and if not assessed to land revenue the court-fee is computed in accordance with section 7(v)(d) of the Court Fees Act and valuation of the  Suit is determined under section 8 of  Suits Valuation Act.

Suit, where land in question, was assessed to land Rev Statements of Patwari and office Qanungo in Court suggested that land in question, was assessed to land Rev. and that the same was “Mera Doem” land, Rev. of which was assessed as three annas and three pies per Kanal in relevant land. Value of Suit for purpose of Jurisdiction was, thus, fixed on basis of land Rev. on “mera Doem” land and the case was triable by sub-Judge. Even if, in the alternative, value of land in question, was fixed on basis of whole Khata wherein such land was entered, Suit remains to be triable by the sub-Judge concerned. Respondents' contention that even if land Rev. was assessed on land in question, and the same was not paid having been exempted by the Government, pecuniary Jurisdiction of Court could not be assessed on that basis was repelled for the simple reason that payment of land Rev. was not mandatory portion of procedure laid down for assessing Suit valuation. Land Rev. which was payable to Government and not its actual payment is key to procedure for valuation. Trial Court and First Appellate Court had concurrently maintained that plaintiff had preferential right over land as compared to vendee 'which has not been rebutted by defendant. High Court had also not set aside finding of Courts below on that score. High Court's finding that trial Court had no Jurisdiction to try Suit in question, in view of consideration amount entered in sale-deed was set aside while Judgments and decrees passed by trial Court and Appellate Court decreeing plaintiff’s Suit were restored.   P.L.J.2000 SC (AJ&K) 265.

A cursory reading of section 8 of the  Suits Valuation Act, 1887 will show that the  Suits covered by section 7, paras.(v), (vi) (pre-emption  Suits) and (ix) and (x), clause (d) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 are explicitly ,excluded from the operation of section 8 of the  Suits Valuation Act, 1887. Therefore, for determining the pecuniary Jurisdiction in a pre-emption Suit the proper section applicable will be section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act, and the rules made thereunder.

Actual payment of land revenue is not mandatory portion of the procedure laid down for assessing  Suit valuation. It is the land revenue which is .payable to the Government and not its actual payment which is key to the procedure for valuation this is clear from the fact that in the subsequent provision the word “payable” and not “being paid” has been used. 2000 Y L R 2104

Muhammad Iqbal v. Farzand Begum and others 1999 CLC 1108; Sain v. Muhammad Din and others 1995 SCR 208 and Ghulam Hussain Shah v. Hiciavaiullah Khan PLD 1981 SC (AJ&K) 55 ref.

            Rules framed by Punjab Govt. under Section 3 of  Suits Valuation Act, 1887, for determining valuation of  Suits for purpose of Jurisdiction of falling under Section 7(v) Value of Property for purpose of Court-fee and Jurisdiction in pre-emption  Suit. Determination of. In pre-emption  Suits, value for purpose of Court-fee was to be fixed.under Section 7(vi) of Court Fees Act, while value for purpose of Jurisdiction was to be fixed under Rule framed under Section 3 of  Suit Valuation Act, because Section 8 of  Suits Valuation Act contained that value for purposes of Jurisdiction in all  Suits except  Suits contained in Section 7 (v), (vi), (ix), (x) and clause (d) of Court Fees Act shall be same, thus, value for purpose of Jurisdiction in pre-emption  Suit shall not be same and should not be fixed under Section 8 of  Suit Valuation Act. From plain reading of section 8, it 19 crystal clear that value for purpose of Jurisdiction of  Suit falling under Section 7 (v, vi, ix & x) and clause (d) of Court Fees Act, shall not be same. Value for purpose of Jurisdiction of Suit shall be determined under Section 3 of Suits Valuation Act.  P.L.J.1999 AJ&K 49. 

(vi).     to enforce a right of pre‑emption; In suits to enforce a right of pre‑emption‑according to the value (computed in accordance with paragraph v of this section) of the land, house or garden in res­pect of which the right is claimed:

Court Decisions

S. 7 (vi)  Net profits arising from land during year next before date of presenting plaint-Value for payment of court-fee: fifteen times of such net profit -No such net profits arising from land value for, payment of court-fee market value of such land. 1980 C L C 589 

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, 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, 1887, S. 3 Suits. Valuation Rules, rr. 3 & 1. P L D 1966 S.C . 461

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. P L D 1988 S.C . 707

Firm Nihal Chand Atma Ram v. Sardari Mal A I R 1926 Leh. 558 and Amir Shah Muhammad v. Syed Shah Muhammad A I R 1931 Leh. 237 ref.

Agricultural land-Valuation to be made on basis of land revenue and not to be computed or calculated on basis of its market value. Valuation for purpose of court-fee-House or a garden-Valuation to be made according to value of subject-matter i.e. according to its market value or sale price. P L D 1985 S.C 393

Judgments in account Suits are not relevant in a Suit for possession by way of pre-emption of agricultural land. The account Suits are valued on different premises and the same cannot be applied to pre-emption Suits. In such cases plaintiff tentatively fixes the value of the Suit for purposes of court-fee under section 7 paragraph (iv) of the Court Fees Act. However, if the amount decreed in such a Suit is more than the approximate value fixed in the plaint the decree cannot be executed as provided in section 11 of the Court Fees Act until the consequent difference in court-fee is paid. Therefore, in account Suits the value fixed in the plaint is the value of the original Suit if the amount decreed is not in excess of that. If, however, the amount exceeds then that amount becomes the value of the Suit. The forum of the appeal is to be determined on such value. The view that the value of a pre-emption Suit is tentatively fixed is not acceptable. There is no provision of law to that effect. In Suit for account there is a specific pro­vision to that effect in Order VII, rule 2, C. P. C. Section 11 of the Court Fees Act also does not apply to a pre-emption Suit. The Legislature when it enacted the Court Fees Act and the Suits Valuation Act was conscious of the special features of pre-emption. In a pre-emption Suit no decree for possession can be passed unless there is a direction for payment by the pre­emptor of the market value or the sale price as the case may be. the Legislature in a case where the  Suit for pre-emption is about a house or garden fixed the value of the  Suit on the basis of market value or the sale price. It could fix the value of pre-emption Suit for the agricultural land also on the market value or the sale price. It, how­ever, did not do so and by ignoring the market value or the price for the purposes of court-fee and Jurisdiction in respect of Suits relating to agricultural land, provided for the fixation of notional value under the Court Fees Act and also under section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act. P L D 1976 Lah. 1

Kalu Ram v. Hanwant Ram A I R 1934 Lah. 488 and Ganga Ram v. Hakim Rai A I R 1934 Lah. 545 held not applicable.

Trial Court prior to making final Judgment and decree in favour of pre-emptor did not determine court-fee payable by pre-emptor/plaintiff and it was for first time while deciding  Suit that court-fee was quantified and  Suit was decreed in favour of pre-emptor subject to making up of deficiency in court-fee up to specified date-Plaintiff, being entitled to grant of opportunity to make up deficiency in court-fee, no fault, held, could be found with Judgment of Trial Court granting time to plaintiff to make up deficiency in court-fee. 1989 M L D 394

Muhammad Siddique and two others v. Abdul Shakoor Khan P L D 1984 S C 289 ref.

            Effect on limitation-Mere non-payment of court-fee by plaintiff within period of limitation or making up deficiency in court-fee after expiry of limitation, held, would not render  Suit of plaintiff otherwise instituted within time, to be time-barred unless plaintiff had first been asked by Court to pay definite amount of court-fee by a specified date and he had defaulted to comply with that order. 1988 C L C 1311

Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan P L D 1984 S C 289 ref.

(vii).     For interest of assignee of land‑revenue.--- In suits for the interest of an assignee of land‑revenue ­fifteen times his net profits as such for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint;

(viii).    To set aside an attachment.--- In suits to set aside an attachment of land or of an in­terest in land or revenue‑according to the amount for which the land or interest was attached:

Provided that, where such amount exceeds the value of the land or interest, the amount of fee shall be computed as if the suit were for the possession of such land or interest.

(ix).      to redeem; In suits against a to mortgagee for the recovery of the pro­perty mortgaged,

fore closer: And in suits by a mortgagee to foreclose the mortgage,  or, where the mortgage is made by conditional sale, to have the sale declared absolute‑

according to the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage.

(x).       for specific performance;

 In suits for specific performance‑

(a)        of a contract of sale‑according to the amount of the consideration:

(b)        of contract of mortgage‑according to the amount agreed to be secured:

(c)        of a contract of lease‑according to the aggregate amount of the fine or premium (if any) and of the rent agreed to ,be paid during the first year of the term:

(d)        of an award.‑according to the amount or value of the property in dispute:

Court Decisions

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 Fee was not to be paid on the valuation of plot but to be calculated on the annual rent. P L D 1989 Pesh. 247

PLD 1987 SC 284 rel.

(xi).      between landlord and tenant. In the following suits between landlord and tenant:­

(a)       for the delivery by a tenant of the counterpart of a lease,

(b)        to enhance the rent of a tenant having a right of occupancy,

(c)        for the delivery by a landlord of a lease,

 (cc)     for the recovery of immoveable property from a tenant, including a tenant holding over after the determination of a tenancy,

(d)        to contest a notice of ejectment,

(e)        to recover the occupancy of immoveable pro­perty from which a tenant has been illegally ejected by the landlord, and:

(f)         for abatement of rent

according to the amount of the rent of the immoveable property  to which the suit refers payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint;

Court Decisions

Applicability--Provision of S.7(xi), Court Fees Act, 1870; would be applicable where dispossession' has been alleged against landlord alone or against the landlord as having been caused with the assistance of other persons. 1995 M L D 342

This Provision would have no application where rights, interests and others were also involved--Provision of S.7(xi), 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), 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. 1995 C L C 206

Secretary of State v. Dinshaw NavroJi and another. AIR 1925 Sindh 275 ref. 

(xii)      In suits not expressly provided for in this section, according to the value claimed, but such value shall not be less than a value which would attract a Court‑fee of less than fifteen rupees. 

1[Punjab Amendment] 

In Section 7 in clause (iv) proviso added after clause (iv) new clause (iv-a) added and clause (v) subs.

Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to suits mentioned in clause (iv-A)];

(iv-A) For a declaratory decree regarding immovable on the basis of alleged sale, etc.--- In suits for a declaratory decree with or without consequential relief as to right in or title to immovable property based on alleged sale, gift, exchange or mortgage-according to the value of the property;

Court Decisions

Where Ownership was claimed by plaintiff on basis of gift, Suit of plaintiff was covered by section 7(iv-A) of Court Fees Act.   P.L.J.1997 Lah. 398 = 1996 CLC 1620.

Suit for declaration was filed to the effect that the plaintiff s/respondents be declared as legal and lawful owners of  Suit land--Contention by plaintiff s 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 plaintiff s 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 Y L R 1564

Gift : -- 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. 1996 C L C 1620

Bashir Ahmad v. Mushtaq Ahmed PLD 1985 Lah. 112 ref.

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 allowed to appellant for payment of court-fee after rejection of appellant's objection to appointment of Local Commissioner and his report on market value of property challenged being not adequate and appellant having been pre-occupied by a revision filed by him in High Court against rejection of his objection petition, he could not avail that period of ten days--Appellant, held; was entitled to extension of time to pay court-fee--Further time was allowed to appellant .by High Court to pay up necessary court-fee and case remanded for further proceedings. 1989 M L D 3003

Decree in terms of award.Appeal against.Where appeal was preferred against Judgment of Court which was passed in terms of award, ad valorem court-fee, held, would be payable on such appeal.Amount of ad valorem Court Fee was to be calculated according to Art. 1 of sched. I, Court Fees Act, 1970.  P L D 1987 Quetta 33

1980 C L C 2177 dissented from. A I R 1926 Lah.403 and P L D 1982 Quetta 52 ref. 

(v)        For possession of lands, house and gardens; In suits for the possession of land houses and gardens-according to the value of the subject matter; and such value shall be deemed to be—

(a)        where the subject-matter in land and where net profits have arisen from such land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint-

            fifteen times such net profits; 

(b)        where the subject-matter is land and where no such profits have arisen therefrom-

            Market value of such land; 

c)         Where the subject matter is a house or garden- according to the market value of the house or garden. 

1.         Punjab Amendment made by Punjab finance Act,1973. S.8 

Court Decisions

            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. In order to determine the proper court‑fee payable on the plaint in a particular suit, the correct principle is that the plaint as a whole should be looked at and that it is the substance of the plaint and not its ostensible form which really matters. The veil could be pierced through by a searching eye for judging the true substance of the ‑plaint to determine the taxability of court‑fee on the plaint. There is a difference between a suit for cancellation of a document under section 39 of the' Specific Relief Act and a. suit for declaration of title filed under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. When a party had sought to establish a title to the property in himself and could not establish that title without removing an obstacle such as a deed by which he was otherwise bound, then quite clearly he must get that deed avoided and his suit, though camouflaged in a declaratory form must in reality be a suit for cancellation of the document. Father of the plaintiff had made a gift of his properties in favour of his one son, unless those gift‑deeds were avoided in Toto, the plaintiff could not succeed in his suit for separation of his share through partition of the properties. Registered gift deeds were an insuperable obstacle in the way of the plaintiff for getting the appropriate relief claimed by him. Therefore, though the suit was put in the form of declaratory relief for avoidance of registered gift‑deeds yet the slit was visibly intended for cancellation of two documents executed by his father in his lifetime. Therefore, the plaintiff was liable to payment of ad valorem court‑fee on the value of the subject‑matter in dispute under Article 1, Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act and that valuation was already given in the registered gift deeds sought to be avoided in the suit by the plaintiff. 1993 C L C 1391

Appeal filed with deficit court-fee-Appellant having failed to make good deficiency in court-fee even on extended date appeal was rightly dismissed on that ground. 1993 M L D 711

1987 SCMR 1161; PLD 1983 Lah. 383; PLD 1991 Lah. 51 and AIR 1961 Pb. 11 ref. 

Pre-emption Suit- A pre-emption Suit is one for possession of land. The value of the Suit for possession through pre-emption for the purposes of court-fee is deter­mined under section 7, paragraph (vi) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and it is the same as it is for Suits covered by paragraph (v) of the same section of that Act for possession of land. The value of the Suit for the purpose of court-fee was fixed under clause of paragraph (v) of section 7 on fifteen times the net profits having arisen from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint. The court-fee in such a Suit is not to be computed or calculated on the basis of its market value. P L D 1976 Lah. 1

Exemption from court-fees-Extent of-Court-fees which normally required payment in terms of S.7 (i) & (ii) of Court Fees Act, 1870 in accordance with Art. I of Sched. I of the Act, was no more required to be paid in view of provisions of S.19 of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964--Exemption from payment of court-felts in case of such suits merely relate to plaints only-Such exemption do not extend to appeals which continued to be charged under the Schedule of the Court Fees Act. 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. 1990 M L D 68

1988 C L C 1711; 1980 C L C 1788 and 1981 C L C 1689 rel. 

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.

Ordinarily, a plaint in a suit for maintenance falls under section 7(i) and (ii), Court Fees Act and attracts ad valorem court‑fee on the amount claimed to be computed in accordance with Article 1, Schedule I of the Court Fees Act. But, section 19 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 alters the law in this respect and enacts that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Court Fees Act, 1870, the court‑fee to be paid on any plaint filed before a Family Court shall be Re. 1. The concession with regard to reduction in the court‑fee is restricted to a 'plaint'. The omission of 'memorandum of appeal' in this section is significant, particularly, as both a plaint and a memorandum of appeal are included in Article 1, Schedule I of the Court Fees Act, as attracting ad valorem court‑fees. On the principle of expression “unius est exclusio alterius” (the express mention of one implies the exclusion of the other), it is clear that the Legislature intended to exclude from the purview of section 19 of the said Act, the 'memorandum of appeal'. The concession with regard to payment of court‑fees on a 'plaint' filed before a Family Court, which has been granted to a petitioner, who is generally a married woman, seeking to enforce her family rights, is not to apply to a memorandum of appeal. 1988 C L C 1645

            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 C L C 1168

Valuation fixed for court-fee-To be valued for purpose of Jurisdiction as well Relief sought for by plaintiff even if falling within S. 7(iv) & (d) of Court Fees Act 1870, plaintiff in. view of S. 8,  Suits Valuation Act, 1887, held, bound to fix same value for purposes of court-fee as well. P L D 1980 Kar. 492

Muhammad Aslam Khan v. Muhammad Hussain and others P L D 1959 Pesh. 101 ref.

Court Fees Act, 1870

­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 C L C 2428

Court‑fee‑Alienation of ancestral land‑Plaintiff praying for declaratory decree and seeking posses­sion as alternative relief in prayer clause of plaint but in body thereof specifically stating that alienator had died and that plaintiff was entitled to possession‑Relief by way of possession in face of such averment, held, had to be asked for essentially and fact that plaintiff prayed for such relief as alternative relief would not make any difference‑Party to state in pleadings essential facts and it is for Court to grant such relief as nature of cause may demand. S. 7 (v) (a) ‑[as amended by Punjab Finance Act (XIV of 1973)]‑Law of Court Fees, held, a procedural law and no vested right exists in procedure.

Application for permission to produce schedule of net profits for purpose of making good deficiency in court‑fee made before first appellate Court after considerable delay which smacked gross negligence‑Application, held, justifiably rejected and appeal dismissed for non‑payment of requisite court‑fee. 1984 C L C 1124 

Words and phrases.-- 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.  Word “suit” includes “appeal” in all cases, held, far from saying-Application of any such principle to section 7 would be to attempt something rash and without care and attention required. P L D 1983 Lah. 383 

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. Objection as to deficiency in Court not raised before Court where document filed‑Held, cannot ordinarily be allowed to be raised in higher Courts. 1983 C L C 117

I L R 23 Mad. 84 ; A I R 1939 Mad. 49 and A I R 1926 Mad. 225 distinguished.

A I R 1929 Lah. 879 and (1913) 19 1 C 961 ref. 

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.

Suit for declaration, that plaintiff is owner of suit property, with consequen­tial relief of injunction, decreed‑Defendants filing appeal and valuing appeal for purposes of court fee at Rs. 15,500.00 but paying court-fee of only Rs. 45‑Court‑fee held, to be paid according to value held, of relief claimed by appellants i.e., Rs. 15,500.00.

P L D 1973 Kar. 653  A I R 197 Nag. 316 and P L D 1959 Posh. 109 rel. 

Valuation fixed for court-fee-To be valued for purpose of jurisdiction as well--Relief sought for by plaintiff even if falling within S. 7(iv) (c) & (d) of Court Fees Act 1870, plaintiff in. view of S. 8, Suits Valuation Act, 1887, held, bound to fix same value for purposes of court-fee as well.

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 avreement 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

P L D 1980 Kar. 492

P L D 1967 Kar. 468; P L D 1973 Kar. 653; P L D 1967 Kar. 498; A I R 1937 Sind 241 and P L D 1971 Kar. 682 ref.

Failure to deposit Court-fee. Failure of supply of proper court-fees in context of Court Fees Act, 1870 and S. 149 and O. VII, r. 11(c), C. P. C. can at best be equated with non prosecution and not with non-institution or presentation of matter/ document nor with bar of limitation-Considerations in this behalf for exercise of discretion under Ss. 148 & 149, C. P. C. and relevant provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870 should be different from those under S. 5, Limitation Act, 1908-Held, when considering options for exercise of discretion for grant of time for supply of deficiency in court-fees considerations relevant to bar of limitation riot to be taken into account.

The failure to supply proper court-fee in the context of the Court Fees Act and section 149. and Order V1I, rule 11(c), C. P. C. can at best be equated with non-prosecution and not with non-institution or presentation of the matter/document nor with the bar of limitation. Accordingly, considerations in that behalf for exercise of discretion under sections 148, 149, and the relevant provisions of Court Fees Act should be different from those under section 5 of the Limitation Act, which in any case does not apply to the suits. To apply the latter to the former cannot be justified on any rule of interpretation.

When considering the options for exercise of discretion for grant of time for supply of deficiency in the court-fee, considerations relevant to bar of limitation shall not be taken into account.

P L D 1984 S. C. 289

P L D 1983 S C 227 and P L D 1984 S C 157 re-affirmed, A I R 1938 Lab. 361 ref.

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- fees .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 C L C 2428

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, 1913, S. 21. P L D 1976 Lah.1

A pre-emption Suit is one for possession of land. The value of the Suit for possession through pre-emption for the purposes of court-fee is deter­mined under section 7, paragraph (vi) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and it is the same as it is for Suits covered by paragraph (v) of the same section of that Act for possession of land. The value of the Suit for the purpose of court-fee was fixed under clause of paragraph (v) of section 7 on fifteen times the net profits having arisen from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint. The court-fee in such a Suit is not to be computed or calculated on the basis of its market value. P L D 1976 Lah.1

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 M L D 342

Power vested in Court under S.148, Civil Procedure Code, can be exercised successfully and even after time under previous such order has expired and nothing turned on fact that there was a gap between period covered by two orders. 1986 S C M R 1005Burden 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 M L D 2945

Khizrat Muhammad and others v. Ghulam Muhammad and others P L D 1962 Lah. 492 and Siddique Khan and others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and others P L D 1984 SC 289. ref.

Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S.8. Forum of appeal-Determination-Valuation for appellate forum had to be determined in view of S.18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962.

Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider, whether in a situation, when for the relief of partition, the suit had not been valued at all for purposes of jurisdiction or court-fees, the Court would be competent to make reference to any other proved document available on record, and if not so, whether Appellate Court had not traveled beyond its jurisdiction under S.18 of West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962.

2002 S C M R 801

Declaration and cancellation of document Court- fees .­Where suit is to obtain simple declaratory relief, court- fees payable in such suit is under Art. 17(iii) of the Sched. II to the Court Fees Act, 1870.Not necessary by implication for the plaintiff in suit for declaration to ask for consequential relief as contemplated under S.39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.Where the plaintiff has not asked for such consequential relief it cannot be held that he should have made a prayer for such a relief but if a suit is framed as one for declaration that certain document is void and is to be treated as one under S.39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, and partly under S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, in such a case the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court- fees  under S.7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. 2002 C L C 1549

Constitutional petition. Fixation of court- feesuit for declaration and cancellation of agreement to sell was filed by the plaintiff alleging the same to be void ab initio on the ground that it was not executed by her but was an act of fraud. Defendant filed application under O. VII, R.11, C.P.C. for the rejection of plaint as the plaintiff failed to fix ad valorem court-fees. Application was dismissed by the Trial Court but the Appellate Court allowed the same and directed the plaintiff to affix the court- fees  under S.7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Validity. Where the plaintiff had asked for declaration under S.42 and for cancellation of the document under S.39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, she was liable to pay ad valorem court- fees under S.7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.­Appellate Court had, rightly exercised its jurisdiction vested in it under the law and directed the plaintiff to affix the requisite court- fees . 2002 C L C 1549

PLD 1965 Dacca 439 distinguished.

PLD 1969 Dacca 357; NLR 1984 Civil 59; PLD 1981 A J&K 55;  PLD 1991 AJ&K 66 and 2000 MLD 1611 ref.

          S.7(v) [as amended by Sindh Finance Act. (XIII of 1974)S.31.Court­fee payable in, suit for possession of land, house and garden. Computation of. Court- fees in suit for possession of land, house ref.

S.7 (v)(b). Pre-emption suit and garden was to be computed on basis of value of subject-matter and market value of land, house or garden would be deemed to be such value.

2002 M L D 800 PLD 1985 SC 393 Jurisdictional value. ­Determination .Land was assessed to land revenue, but for some reason, the same was not recovered for being exempted. Jurisdictional value would be determined in accordance with the assessment of land revenue. P L D 2002 A J&K 1

2000 YLR 2104 ref.

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. P L D 2001 Lah. 3

Factors to be taken into consideration.

Allegations made by defendant. Effect. For the purpose of determination of court- fees  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-fees 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- fees. Payment of court- fees 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- fees . P L D 2001 Kar. 1 

Interference by Court in valuation of court- fees made by plaintiff. Powers of Court. Scope. Plaintiff has been authorised by S.7 of Court Fees Act, 1870 to value the suit and pay court- fees thereon as framed by him and the same is not open to the Court to object that the suit has not been properly framed. Where the plaintiff had arbitrarily or without any plausible basis fixed the valuation of suit which was not acceptable in any manner or if the valuation given by plaintiff was fictitious or the plaintiff had undervalued or overvalued the suit with mala-fide motives, the Court had power to interfere.

P L D 2001 Kar. 1

Objection-to. Scope. Material date for such valuation. Objection raised by the defendant was that the plaintiff had undervalued the suit as the subject-matter of the suit was in excess of Rs.5 lacs and the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to proceed. Validity. For the purpose of valuation of the suit and payment of court- fees, the material date for the valuation under S.7 of Court Fees Act, 1870, was the date of institution of the suit-Value of the subject-matter of the suit at the time of institution was not in excess of Rs. five lacs and the Trial Court had jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. ­Objection raised by defendant was overruled. P L D 2001 Kar. 1

Suit for maintenance. 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 rate of Rs.1,000 per month. Appellate Court, on appeal, instead of considering the rate of maintenance as granted by the Trial Court, directed the appellant to make up deficiency of court fee on memorandum of appeal on the basis of the subject-matter of the suit which was Rs. 2, 000 per month and the appellant paid the required court fee and the Appellate Court directed the appellant to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.800 per month too the plaintiff till she attained majority. ­Court- fees on the memo of appeal against order of maintenance, would be on the subject-matter in dispute in appeal and not on the subject-matter in dispute of claim in suit filed by the plaintiff. Appellant could be refunded court fee after deducting the court­ fee on the subject-matter in dispute in appeal which was Rs.1,000 per month as was granted by the Trial Court and was appealed against. 2001 Y R 2560 

Suit for rendition of account.­ Valuation of suit for purpose of court- fees  and jurisdiction of Court. Return of memorandum of appeal .Value of suit for purposes of court- fees 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- fees  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- fees holding that suit amount being, Rs.8,00,000 suit for purposes of court- fees  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- fees .Plaintiff paid additional fee on the plaint, but when case was resubmitted to Appellate Court it returned memo of appeal holding that court-fees  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- fees 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- fees was Rs.8,00,000 and that appeal lay to High Court. Plaintiff, according to S.7(iv)(f) of Court Fees Act, 1870, was entitled to fix notional value for purpose of court- fees  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 court­ fee 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 C L C 1598

1979 CLC 95 and AIR 1946 Lah. 280 ref. 

Suit for declaration. Court-fees payable-Determination of .Plaintiff in his suit had sought a declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of suit land and also that gift deed and the sale-deed in favour of respondents were illegal, ineffective and inoperative against his rights. Said relief flew from declaration itself. Suit filed by plaintiff fell under S.7(iv)(c) of Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Sched. II, Art. 17(iii) of said Act. 2000 M L D 1611 

Agricultural land. Suit was valued on the basis of land revenue. Value in the plaint was fixed at Rs. 4,052 being 30 times of the Land Revenue assessed. Validity. District Judge was competent to entertain such appeal and to decide the same accordingly. 2000 Y L R 610

PLD 1985 SC 393 ref.

Suit for Pre-emption. ­Determination of court- fees. Plaintiff claimed superior right of Pre-emption on ground of being co-sharer in suit land; owner of estate and collateral of the vendor. Plaintiff had alleged that amount of Rs. 90,000 mentioned in the mutation by vendees was fictitious and that actually a sum of Rs. 28,000 was paid by vendees as sale price .Vendees in their statements had objected that value for purposes of court fee was incorrect and proper court fee had not been paid by plaintiff and that sum of Rs. 90,000 was fixed in good faith and was actually paid as price of the suit land. Trial Court accepted claim of plaintiff with regard to his superior right of Pre-emption and payment of sale price as claimed by vendees, but dismissed suit on ground that court fee had not been properly assessed and paid by plaintiff. Appellate Court below decreed the suit subject to payment of Rs. 90,000 to vendees. Appeal filed by plaintiff before Appellate Court against judgment of Trial Court was resisted on ground that Appellate Court did not possess pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and decide appeal because market .value of suit land had been fixed Rs. 90,000 by Trial Court which was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of Appellate Court. Suit, as a whole was dismissed by Trial Court and decree of Trial Court in its entirety was challenged before Appellate Court. Appellate Court had found as a. fact that as suit land which formed a definite share of estate was assessed to land revenue of Rs. 2, jurisdictional value of same would be thirty times of said land revenue and Appellate Court in circumstances, was possessed of the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and to decide appeal. 2000 Y L R 2404

Ad valorem court fee, affixing of. Suit for declaration was filed to the effect that the plaintiff s/respondents be declared as legal and lawful owners of suit land. Contention by plaintiff s was that declaration sought was in regard to any lease relationship between the parties and provisions of S.7(11.C) of Court Fees Act, 1870 was applicable. ­Validity. Prayer clause of the plaint was contrary to the contentions raised by the plaintiff s 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 Y L R 1564 

Deficiency in court- fees. Determination. court-fees 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- fees was not affixed. Validity. Where Trial Court did not ascertain the correct valuation of the suit for the purposes of court- fees and jurisdiction, the petitioner/plaintiff was justified in fixing the court- fees on the basis of “Rust Panj Sala” .Finding of lower Appellate Court that petitioner/plaintiff did not affix the 'court- fees as ascertained by the Trial Court, was not available on record. Case was remanded to lower Appellate Court to determine the deficiency of court- fees. 1999 C L C 1383

PLD 1984 SC 289 ref.

Pre-emption suit. ­Value of suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court- fees  Determination. Fundamental duty of plaintiff/pre-emptor to fix value of suit for purpose of jurisdiction and court fee according to provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870, and Suits Valuation Act, 1887.Value for purposes of court: fee was to be fixed under S.7(vi), Court Fees Act, 1870.Value for purposes of jurisdiction of suit, falling under S. 7(v) (vi) (ix) (x), and cl. (d) of Court Fees Act, 1870, would not be the same as it was to be fixed under S.3 of Suits Valuation Act, 1887.

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.

Evidence on record had proved that suit land was not assessed to separate revenue and nothing was on record on basis of which it could be said that the land was paying revenue or it was exempted from payment of revenue and was charged with fixed payment in lieu of such revenue. ­Nothing was available on record on basis of which it could be said that net profits had arisen from the land during year next and before filing of suit. Value for purposes of jurisdiction of Court, thus, would be market value of land and value for purposes of court­-fee would be fixed under S.7(v)(c) of Court Fees Act, 1870, according to value of similar land in neighbourhood. Plaintiff in his plaint had himself asserted that market value of suit land for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction of Court was Rs.70,000. Trial Court being competent to hear suits to the extent of value of Rs.25,000, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit Decree passed by Trial Court, was, thus, without jurisdiction.

1999 Y L R 2668  AIR 1930 Lah. 182 ref.

Civil Procedure Code,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-fees and another application that court- fees  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-fees. Finding of First Appellate Court did not suffer from any infirmity justifying interference in second appeal. Findings of Appellate Court were maintained in circumstances. 1998CLC417

1997 SCMR 919 rel.

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 M L D 589

1988 CLC 1711; 1997 SCMR 919; PLD 1979 SC 821; PLD 1970 Kar. 295 PLD 1968 Kar. 883; 1969 SCMR 12; PLD 1984 SC 289; 1972 SCMR 179; PLD 1964 SC 520; P. PLD 1976, SC 625; PLD 1970 SC 37; 1996 SCMR 727; PLD 1987 SC(AJ&K) 5 and PLD 1979 SC 821 ref.

Suit for declaration and injunction. Court- fees was not required to be paid ad valorem on market value of subject property. Plaintiff could determine his own valuation about court- fees and jurisdiction. 1998 C L C 27

Determination of court- fees by Court. Contention that court-fees: should have been determined by the Trial Court before dismissing the suit had no force. Court- fees 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 C L C 1851

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- fees under S.7(v) & (vi), Court Fees Act, 1870 and for purposes of jurisdictional valuation under S.3, Suits Valuation Act, 1887. 1997 C L C 768 

Alternate relief - Prayer for alternate relief in plaint having been included, plaintiff's application for permission to pay further court- fees 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- fees on account of his alternate prayer. Plaintiff was allowed to amend title as well as relevant para of plaint. 1997CLC1210

1968 SCMR 321 and PLD 1973 Kar. 653 ref. 

Abolition S.7(ii). Punjab Court Fees (Abolition) Ordinance (X of 1983), S.2 & Sched.West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.19. Plaints regarding maintenance and annuities. Court-fees payable. Provisions of S.7(ii), Court Fees Act, 1870, are applicable to plaints regarding maintenance and annuities etc. but the same would not be applicable to appeals arising out of decrees in maintenance suit. Court- fees on memo of appeal arising out of decree for maintenance granted by Family Court is, however, to be paid according to the value of subject-matter of appeal. Impugned amount under the decree, which .was determinable on the date of decree, would be the value of subject matter of appeal. .Where subject-matter of appeal did not exceed Rs.25,000 no court- fees  would be payable on memo of appeal in view of overriding provisions of Punjab Court Fees (Abolition) Ordinance, 1983. Where value of subject matter of appeal would exceed Rs.25,000 the court- fees  was to be paid in accordance with item I of Sched. I, Court Fees Act, 1870, at the rate of 7.1/2 per cent of the value of subject.matter, subject to the maximum of Rs. 15,000. No court- fees was payable on suit for maintenance but fixed amount of Rs. 15 was payable as court- fees .­Subject-matter of appeal did not exceed to Rs.25,000 Appellate Court was not justified in demanding court- fees; on decretal amount . Order of Appellate Court demanding court- fees on order of appeal was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. P L D 1996 Lah. 436 

Return of plaint-.Effect. Trial Court after passing decree in suit had become functus officio, therefore, it could not have returned plaint. Person aggrieved against such decree could have availed remedy of appeal and revision. Trial Court in earlier round of litigation itself could not have directed return of plaint without expressly recalling decree in question, which was not done. Order of return of plaint was, thus, without jurisdiction. Suit originally valued, however, was within jurisdiction of Trial Court in first round of litigation. Valuation of the original suit as determined under S.3, Suits Valuation Act, 1887, for purposes of jurisdiction would be the determining factor and not market value or sale price of subject-matter of suit. First Trial Court's view that parties having agreed that Pre-emption amount be fixed at specified amount, therefore, Court lacked jurisdiction was incorrect. Plaintiff being successful pre emptor and he alone being not responsible for the events which took place after the decree, was entitled to equity. Plaintiff s failure to deposit decretal amount in first round of litigation (due to subsequent return of plaint to him) being due to the act of Court, he would be entitled to extension of time. Time as granted to plaintiff to deposit decretal amount and his decree in first round of litigation was restored.

 1995 M L D 737   1994 SCMR 2039 and Yousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia and others PLD 1958 SC 104 rel.

PLD 1988 SC 409; PLD 1985 SC 393; 1993 MLD 36 and 1986 CLC 233 ref.

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- fees  on basis of market value. Parties agreeing to the market value of premises. Court- fees had, thus, been rightly, computed in suit and same was within jurisdiction of the Court. 1995 C L C 206 AIR 1925 Sindh 275 ref. 

Deficiency in court- fees .Court had mandatory duty to grant time to plaintiff to supply deficient court-fees; it was only on plaintiff’s contumacy that penal provisions as to rejection of plaint could be invoked. Record showed that First Appellate Court had recorded definite finding that plaintiff’s conduct was not contumacious, with which High Court did not intervene. First Appellate Court and High Court correctly followed the law laid down by Supreme Court in Siddique Khan’s case PLD 1984 SC 289.Trial Court had framed issue which covered the controversy as to the valuation of suit and insufficiency of court-fees. Both sides had opportunity to lead evidence on that issue. Defendants, thus, could not be decried to have been deprived of opportunity to support their case before Trial Court relating to deficiency of court- fees .Findings of Courts below warranted no interference in circumstances. 1994 S C M R 62

PLD 1984 SC 289 rel.

Rejection of memorandum of appeal on account of deficiency in court- fees. Without a prior determination of precise amount of court- fees payable on document, be it a plaint or memorandum of appeal, and allowing opportunity for making good the discovered deficiency in court- fees, such document could not be rejected. Trial Court also had given no decision about the amount of court- fees 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- fees  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- fees payable on memorandum of appeal and allowing opportunity to plaintiff to make good deficiency in court-fees by specified time. In default of payment of required amount of court- fees, law would take its own course while in event of payment of court- fees 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 CLC 461

AIR 1947 Lah. 210 ref. PLD 1984 SC 289 rel.

Suit for possession of agricultural land through pre-emption-Payment of court-fee-Effect of non-payment of court-fee as per direction of Trial Court-Suit of possession through pre-emption was filed on 10-7-1973-Punjab Finance Act, 1973 came into force on 29th June, 1973, ring court-fee on suits for possession of land on the basis of fifteen times of net profits arising from land during the year next before the date of presenting plaint-Trial Court although ordered filing of Naqsha-Jhar Paidawar for determination of court-fee, yet it neither determined precise amount of court­ fee on the plaint nor called upon plaintiff s to pay the precise amount-Without determination of precise amount of court fee payable on a document and calling upon defaulting party for making good deficiency in court-fee so determined penal action was not called for-Plaints were, thus, called upon to pay additional court-fee in the sum of specified amount by or before a fixed date, failing which, plaint in pre-emption suit was to be deemed to have been rejected under O.VII, R. 11, Civil Procedure Code, 190&--On payment of specific court-fee in time, revision against plaintiff s would be deemed to have been dismissed.

1994 M L D 402 1985 CLC 2966 ref. 

Principles. Correct principle to determine proper court- fees 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- fees 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- fees payable on the plaint. Difference between a suit for cancellation of a document and a suit for declaration of title, and payment of court-fees on each of such suits. In order to determine the proper court- fees payable on the plaint in a particular suit, the correct principle is that the plaint as a whole should be looked at and that it is the substance of the plaint and not its ostensible form which really matters. The veil could be pierced through by a searching eye for judging the true substance of the plaint to determine the taxability of court-fees on the plaint. There is a difference between a suit for cancellation of a document under section 39 of the' Specific Relief Act and a. suit for declaration of title filed under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. When a party had sought to establish a title to the property in himself and could not establish that title without removing an obstacle such as a deed by which he was otherwise bound, then quite clearly he must get that deed avoided and his suit, though camouflaged in a declaratory form must in reality be a suit for cancellation of the document. Father of the plaintiff had made a gift of his properties in favour of his one son, unless those gift deeds were avoided in Toto, the plaintiff could not succeed in his suit for separation of his share through partition of the properties. Registered gift deeds were an insuperable obstacle in the way of the plaintiff for getting the appropriate relief claimed by him. Therefore, though the suit was put in the form of declaratory relief for avoidance of registered gift deeds yet the slit was visibly intended for cancellation of two documents executed by his father in his lifetime. Therefore, the plaintiff was liable to payment of ad valorem court- fees on the value of the subject-matter in dispute under Article 1, Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act and that valuation was already given in the registered gift deeds sought to be avoided in the suit by the plaintiff. 1993 C L C 1391

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-Court-fee of value of rupees 10 paid by plaintiff s/co­-sharers on their plaint filed for partition of common property, was rightly found sufficient by Trial Court. 1993 M L D 724

PLD 1970 Pesh. 150 and AIR 1918 PC 188 ref. 

Valuation of property for purposes of court-fees. 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. Plaintiff s valuation having been accepted, Trial Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. 1993 C L C 1682 

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 Relief s sought by plaintiff in plaint nowhere indicated that he had claimed any particular amount from defendants. Exact amount which might have been spent in a questionable manner by defendants/trustees, was yet to be determined. When claim was yet to be settled, plaintiff could tentatively value his plaint. Question whether Court in which suit was filed, had pecuniary jurisdiction to try suit, could have been determined only when claim was finally determined.  1993 M L D 1244

PLD 1972 Kar. 8; 1989 MLD 2150; AIR 1937 Sindh 241.; PLD 1959 Kar. 102 and PLD 1909 Lah. 1.039 ref.

Suit for declaration and consequential relief: Question whether plaint lore proper amount of court- fees 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- fees was not warranted. Case was remanded to be disposed of in accordance with law.

1992 S C M R 1306

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, such subject-matter was to be assessed and computed in accordance with express terms of S. 7(ii), Court Fees Act, 1870. 1991 M L D 210

1987 S C M R 1161; AIR 1927 Oudh 623; AIR 1920 All. 40; Mt. AIR 1934 Lah. 150(1); AIR 1953 All. 442;

Valuation of Suit-In case of a suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief wherein a right or title to immovable property was based on alleged sale, gift, exchange or mortgage thereof, same has to be valued according to the value of property.

1991 M L D 437

PLD 1982 Lah. 615 and PLD 1985 Lah. 112 rel.

Market value Payment of Court-fee on basis of “value” and according to “market value”-Distinction-Question as to what should be the value of suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction where in a suit for declaration and injunction plaintiff had claimed title on basis of sale and if the court-fee was to be paid ad valorem on value then whether it should be the current value at the time of filing of suit or the value as shown in sale-deed-Plaintiff's case was, governed by provision of S.7(iv-a), Court Fees Act, 1870 and he had to pay ad valorem court-fee stamp on basis of value of property in dispute, shown in the deed and not in accordance with “market value” thereof. Section 7 (iv-a), Court Fees Act, 1870 added by Sindh Finance Act, 1974, and amended by Sindh Finance Act, 1975 in the Court Fees Act, 1870 had intended the payment of court-fee to be made on the basis of the value -as pertained to the “sale, gift, exchange or mortgage thereof” while in the substituted clause (v) the intention was that the suit be valued according to “market value”. It is, therefore, obvious that in the first provision i.e, clause (iv-a),.Court Fees Act, 1870 i, was not the intention of the Legislature that the suit was to be valued in accordance with the market value but it was to be in accordance with the value as `provided in newly-added clause (iv-a) and the obvious inference therefore is that it is to be the value as shown in the document of alienation. Present case was governed by section 7 (iv-a) of the Court' Fees Act, 1870 and petitioners had to pay ad valorem court-fee stamp on the value of the property in dispute, a house, the value of which is shown at Rs. 30,240 as per PTD issued to him by Settlement Authorities.

1991 M L D 437

7‑A. Abolition of court‑fees in certain cases.--- 1[Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7 or in the Schedules, no court‑fee shall, except as provided in section 7‑B, be, payable in.

(a)        any criminal case; and

(b)        any case of civil nature the value of the subject‑matter whereof, or relief claimed wherein, does not exceed twenty‑five thousand rupees.”

7‑B. Payment of court‑fees at punitive rate.--- (1)  If in a case of civil nature falling under clause (b) of section 7‑A the Court of opinion that the claim or any part of it was false and either frivolous or vexatious the Court shall by order in writing, if the party by whom the claim was preferred is present, call upon him forthwith to show cause why he should not pay Court‑fee on the entire claim or, as the case may be part thereof, at double the rate which would, but for section 7‑A, have been leviable in such a case under the Act, or, if such party is not present, direct issue of summons to him to appear and show cause as afore said;

            (2)        The Court shall record and consider any cause which such party may show and if the Court is satisfied that the claim was false and either frivolous or vexatious shall, for reasons to be recorded, direct that the Court­-fee on the entire claim or, as the case may be, part thereof, at the rate specified in sub‑section (1) above, shall be paid by such party.

(3)        The order for payment of court‑fee as aforesaid shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other order which the Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of the case.

(4)        A copy of the order made under sub‑section (2) shall be sent by the Court to the Collector of the District in which the party against whom order is made resides or ordinarily works for gain, and the Collector shall direct the party concerned to pay the court‑fee within one month of the making of the order by him, failing which the Collector shall proceed to recover the court‑fee as arrears of the land revenue.

Legal Amendments

1.         S.7-A & S.7-B added by the Baluchistan Ordinance, IX of 1981. S.3. 

8. Fee on memorandum of appeal against order relating to compensation.--- The amount of fee payable under this Act on a memoran­dum of appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act for the time being in force for the acquisition of land for public purposes shall be computed according to the difference between the amount awarded anal the amount claimed by the appellant.

Court Decisions

Avoidance of registered sale‑deed-Suit for declaration-Such suit, in fact being visibly intended for cancellation of registered documents, plaint was liable to payment of ad valorem court‑fee on the value of the subject‑matter in dispute under Art. 1, Sched. 1 of Court Fees Act, 1870. 1993 C L C 1391

9. Power to ascertain net profits or market‑value.--- If the Court sees reason to think that the annual net profits or the market‑value of any such land, house or garden as is mentioned in section 7, paragraphs 5 and 6, have or has been wrongly esti­mated, the Court may, for the purpose of computing the fee payable in any suit therein mentioned, issue a commission to any proper person directing him to make such local or other investigation as may be necessary, and to report thereon to the Court.

Court Decisions

Payment of court-fees in pre-emption suit on determination of value of subject-matter in that behalf through (prevalent) practice of calculation on basis of annual net profits, held, has led to unfortunate long delays, unnecessary expense and unnecessary litigation on hyper technical issues-Attempts also made to misuse law and practice in order to obtain undue advantage-Amendment in relevant law suggested.

The experience so far gained regarding the payment of court-fee in preemption suits on determination of the value of the subject-matter in that behalf through the prevalent practice of calculation on the basis of the annual net profits, has led to unfortunate long delays, unnecessary expense as also unnecessary litigation on hyper technical issues. Sometimes attempts are made to misuse the law and practice in order to obtain undue advantage. It is appropriate that the concerned agency should examine the feasibility of amending the law regarding court-fee in pre-emption cases (at whatever limit of valuation it is decided to levy) on the basis of the sale price asserted by the vendee as paid by him. On account of devaluation and widespread inflation the value of immovable property has increased many times. If a pre-emptor is ready to pay the price paid by the vendee or whatever is determined by the Court, as the price payable by him, he should be ready to pay the court-fee accordingly (if, of course, on principle the court-fee is made leviable as the limit of the value concerned). In cases where ultimately the amount of court-fee determined by Court as payable, on a claim to be presented by the plaintiff, is found to be less than what was originally paid by him at the time of the filing of the suit, the excess amount could be refunded in accordance with law. The principle and procedure for refund of income-tax paid in excess of the due amount can, with advantage mutatis mutandis be adopted in this behalf also: P L D 1984 S C 157

Court- fees .Pre­emption suit .Valuation. Court- fees 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 Tahsildar, 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 C L C 1256

10. Procedure where net profits or market‑value wrongly estimated.--- i) If in the result of any such investigation the Court finds that the nett profits or market‑value have or has been wrongly estimated, the Court, if the estimation has been excessive, may in its discretion refund the excess paid as such fee: but, if the estima­tion has been insufficient, the Court shall require the plaintiff to pay so much additional fee as would have been payable had the said market‑value or nett profits been rightly estimated. 

ii)         In, such case the suit shall be stayed until the additional fee is paid. If the additional fee is not paid within such time as the Court shall fix, the suit shall be dismissed.

Court Decisions

Rejection of plaint for non-payment of court-fee-Requirement-Liability of a suit to be taken off, held, could follow only upon failure of plaintiff to supply requisite stamp paper on requisition from Court, to pay same within specified time-Where Court comes to conclusion that a plaint was to be properly stamped, proper course would be an order under S. 10, Court Fees Act, to direct payment of requisite court-fee-Such order could also be passed by Trial Court under S. 6, Court Fees Act in conjunction with S. 149 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. P L D 1987 Lah. 127

P L D 1984 S C 289 and A I R 1918 P C 188 rel

11. Procedure in suits for mesne profits or account when amount decreed exceeds amount claimed.--- (1) In suits for mesne profits or for immoveable property and mesne profits, or for an account, if the profits or amount decreed are or is in excess of the profits claimed or the amount at which the plaintiff valued the relief sought, the decree shall not be executed until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee which would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the profits or amount so decreed shall have been paid to the proper officer. 

Where the amount of mesne profits is left to be ascertained in the course of the execution of the decree, if the profits so ascertained exceed the profits claimed, the further execution of the decree shall be stayed until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee which would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the profits so ascertained is paid. If the additional fee is not paid within such time as the Court shall fix, the suit shall be dis­missed.

            (2)        Refund where amount decreed is less than amount claimed. Where in any such suit as is referred to in sub‑section (1) the Court‑fee paid is found to be in excess of the amount of fee which would be payable if the suit had been valued at the amount decreed, the decree‑holder shall be entitled to the refund of the excess of Court‑fee paid by him.

Court Decisions

Section 11 of Court Fees Act would come into play after a decree was passed-­Provisions of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. however, could be invoked during continuance of proceedings prior to final disposal of a  Suit--Both the provisions viz. those of Court Fees Act and Civil Procedure Code were neither contradictory nor inconsistent with each other--Court Fees Act being a special law could not be deemed to have been repealed by general law i.e. Civil Procedure Code.Trial Court's direction to postpone preparation of decree till payment of court-fee, held, was violative of provisions of S.11(1) of Court Fees Act. High Court directed Trial Court to prepare same.  1987 M L D 70

12. Decision of question as to valuation.--- (i) Every question relating to valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of any fee chargeable under this chapter on a plaint or memorandum of appeal shall be decided by the Court in which such plaint or memorandum, as the case may be, is filed, and such decision shall be final as between the parties to the suit.

            (ii)        But whenever any such suit comes before a Court of appeal, reference or revision, if such Court considers that the said question has been wrongly decided to the detriment of the revenue, it shall require the party by whom such fee has been paid to pay so much additional fee as would have been payable had the question been rightly decided, and the provisions of section 10, paragraph ii, shall apply.

Court Decisions 

 Contentions (1) that decision of S.C. in case of Mst. Walayat Khatun P L D 1979 S C 821 and subsequent reported decisions by S.C. has led to conflict of authority, thus leading to confusion, for litigant public and Bar which needed to be resolved, (2) that S.C. 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 Khatun's case P L D 1979 S C 821 cannot be assumed to have dissented from S.C. Judgments in Muhammad Nawaz Khan's case P L D 1970 S C 37 and Shah Nawaz's case 1972 S C M R 179--Law laid down by S.C . in cases of Muhammhd Nawaz Khan P L D 1970 S C 37 and Shah Nawaz's case 1972 S C M R 179 continue to hold field and is law declared, notwithstanding Judgment in case of Mst. Walayat Khatun P L D 1979 S C 821-No departure was ever made in any case from what was held in two cases of Muhammad Nawaz and Shah Nawaz to effect that it was obligatory to allow time for supply of deficiency in court-fee before rejecting plaint and regarding refusal of discretion under S. 149, C. P. C. only on grounds of contumacious and positive mala-fide conduct ; (2) That this being not unusual for Court consisting of Bench of more than one Judge to render a decision consisting of more than one Judgment, decision reached in Mst. Walayat Khatun's case P L D 1979 S C 821 was undoubtedly common ratio of two separate Judgments. Strict view in Mst. Walayat Khatun's case expressed in second Judgment was not common ratio of decision and has to be treated as individual opinion of one Judge. P L D 1984 S.C . 289

Hassan Bakh.sh v. Afzal Shah 1974 S C M R 364; Jan Muhammad v. Ghulam uhaus 1976 S C M R 141 and Abdul Ghani v. Muhammad Alam 1976 S C M R 147 analysed.

Sohara v. Rashid Ahmad and others P L D 19E Lah. 261 and Muhammad Siddig v. Muhammad Ibrahim P L D 1981 B J 23 and other cases in that line to be read and construed accordingly.

13. Refund of fee paid on memorandum of appeal.--- If an appeal or plaint, which has been rejected by the lower Court on any of the grounds mentioned in the Code of Civil Proce­dure, is ordered to be received, or if a suit is remanded in appeal, on any of the grounds mentioned in section 351 of the same Code for a second decision by the lower Court, the Appellate Court shall grant to the appellant a certificate, authorizing him to receive back from the Collector the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of appeal.

            Provided that‑if, in the case of a remand in appeal, the order of remand shall not cover the whole of the subject‑matter of the suit, the certificate so granted shall not authorize the appellant to receive back more than so much fee as would have been originally payable on the part or parts of such subject‑matter in respect whereof the suit has been remanded.

Court decisions

Refund of Court fees: S.C.of Pakistan in Sh. Riaz-ud-Din versus Aqil-ur-Rehman Siddique and 4 others (PLD 1993 S.C .76) has resolved controversy of refund of Court fees. “Under Article 2-A of Constitution of 1973 (as amended in 1985) State is obliged to further the end S of social Justice which inter-alia, obligate it to “ensure inexpensive and expeditious Justice” (see Article 37 (d) of Constitution) To require a party to pay court-fee in a proceeding where parties have compromised their dispute outside court and decided to withd Raw proceedings pending before court, thereby not burdening it (the court) to expend its valuable time in examining case, in hearing arguments in connection therewith, deliberating over the Judgment thereon and then in formally taking time to write it; manifestly defeats above mandate of Constitution as it penalises the party for approaching the court, instead of assisting it to obtain un-expensive and speedy Justice”. Positive circumstance in favour of petitioner is that appeal was admitted on 8.3,1994 which was disposed of as withd Rawn on 16.5.1994. It means that time of court was not wasted practically and that it was at the earliest that petitioner with Rew appeal.  P.L.J.1996 Lah. 629 = 1995 CLC 1931.

Besides Section 13 of Court Fees Act, court fee can also be refunded under Section 151 of C,P.C. But where Conduct of applicant was not appreciable at any stage. He challenged mutations sanctioned in 1919 by filing Suit in 1980 without affixing proper court-fee. He did not make up deficiency in court-fee within one month despite specific direction by Court. There is also considerable unexplained delay in moving application for refund of court-fee. Case of applicant is neither covered by Section 13 of Court Fees Act nor by Section 151 of C.P.C.   P.L.J.1994 Lah. 535 = 1995 CLC 111.

Plaintiff in her suit claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2, 000 per month but the Trial Court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000 per month. Appellate Court, on appeal, instead of considering the rate of maintenance as granted by the Trial Court, directed the appellant to make up deficiency of court fee on memorandum of appeal on the basis of the subject-matter of the suit which was Rs. 2, 000 per month and the appellant paid the required court fee and the Appellate Court directed the appellant to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.800 per month too the plaintiff till she attained majority.­ Court- fees  on the memo of appeal against order of maintenance, would be on the subject-matter in dispute in appeal and not on the subject-matter in dispute of claim in suit filed by the plaintiff. Appellant could be refunded court fee after deducting the court­ fee on the subject-matter in dispute in appeal which was Rs.1,000 per month as was granted by the Trial Court and was appealed against. 2001 Y R 2560

14. Refund of fee on application for review of judgment.--- Where an application for a review of judgment is pre­sented on or after the ninetieth day from the date of the decree, the Court, unless the delay was caused by the applicant’s laches, may, in its discretion, grant him a certificate authorizing him to receive back from the Collector so much of the fee paid on the application as exceeds the fee which would have been payable had it been presented such day.

15. Refund where Court reverses or modifies its former de­cision on ground of mistake.--- Where an application for a review of judgment is admitted, and where, on the rehearing, the Court reverses or modifies its former decision on the ground of mistake in law or fact, the applicant shall be entitled to a certificate from the Court authorizing him to receive back from the Collector so much of the fee paid on the application as exceeds the fee payable on any other application to such Court under the second schedule to this Act, No. 1, clause (b) or clause (d).

            But nothing in the former part of this section shall entitle the applicant to such certificate where the reversal or modification is due, wholly or in part, to fresh evidence which might have been produced at the original hearing.

16.       1[Repealed].--- Legal Amendments, 1. S.16 Rep. by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908).

17. Multifarious suits.--- Where a suit embraces two or more distinct subjects, the plaint or memorandum of appeal shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the fees to which the plaints or memoranda of appeal in suits embracing separately each of such subjects would be liable under this Act.

Nothing in the former part of this section shall be deemed to af­fect the power conferred by the Code of Civil Procedure, section 9.

Court Decisions

Suit of a multifarious nature falling under S.17 of the Act -Court‑fee payable on such suit would be the aggregate of the fee separately chargeable on the separate causes of action. Whereas Schedules I and 11, of Court Fees Act, 1870 deal with livability court‑fees whereas the other provisions of the Act deal with chargeability, computation, etc. The language of Article 1 of schedule I clearly states this Article will not apply to a plaint or memorandum of appeal “otherwise provided for in this Act”. These word obviously refer to a provision in the Schedules dealing with livability. Thus a plaint or memorandum of appeal cannot come under the operation of Article 1 of schedule I, if it falls under some other specific Article in any of the Schedules. Schedule II refers to certain plaints and memoranda of appeal in certain Suits where specific court ­fee is provided for Section 17 of the Act makes no provision of this kind. It merely lays down rule whereby aggregate amount of fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal in Suit embracing separate subjects will have to be paid, but does not itself fix the amount of the court‑fee. Rather, it refers to other parts of the Act for the amount leviable i.e. to the Schedules, which deal with the subject. Section 17 is subject to the rules as to the amount of the fee which is stated in the Schedules. Thus, the court‑fee payable on a plaint in respect of a multifarious Suit covered by section 17, where the court‑fee is not otherwise provided for by the Act, would be Article 1 of schedule 1 If this Article is applicable, it is to be applied according to its exact tenor. A maximum ceiling to court‑fee is provided on the documents listed in this Article, which includes a plaint. This would therefore apply, irrespective of the consideration whether section 17 is applicable to the case. The ceiling overrides the rule contained in section 17. 1993 S C M R 683

18. Written examinations of complainants.--- When the first or only examination of a person who com­plains of the offence of wrongful confinement, or of wrongful restraint, or of any offence other than an offence for which police­ officers may arrest without a warrant, and who has not already presented a petition on which a fee has been levied under this Act, is reduced to writing under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complainant shall pay a fee of eight annas unless the Court thinks fit to remit such payment.

19. Exemption of certain documents.--- Nothing contained in this Act shall render the following documents chargeable with any fee:

 i        Power‑of‑attorney to institute or defend a suit when executed by an officer, warrant‑officer, non‑commissioned officer or private of the Pakistan Army not in civil employment.

 ii.      1[ Replead].

 iii      Written statements called for by the Court after the firms hearing of a suit.

 iv.     2[Replead].

 v.      3[Replead].  

 vi.     4[Replead].

 vii.    5[Replead]

 viii.    Probate of a will, letters of administration, and, save as regards debts and securities, a certificate under Sind Regulation VIII of 1827, where the amount or value of the property in respect of which the probate or letters or certificate shall be granted does not exceed one thousand rupees.

 ix.     Application or petition to a Collector or other officer making a settlement of land‑revenue, or to a Board of Revenue, or a Commissioner of Revenue, relating to matters con­nected with the assessment of land or the ascertainment of rights thereto or interests therein, if presented previous to the final confirmation of such settlement.

 x.      Application relating to a supply for irrigation of water belonging to Government.

 xi.     Application for leave to extend cultivation, or to relinquish land, when presented to an officer of land‑revenue by a person holding, under direct engagement with Government, land of which the revenue is settled, but not permanently.

 xii.    Application for service of notice of relinquishment of land or of enhancement of rent.

 Xiii    Written authority to ah agent to distrain.

 xiv.   First application (other than a petition containing a criminal charge or information) for the summons of a witness or other person to attend either to give evidence or to produce a document or in respect of the production or filing of an exhibit not being an affidavit made for the immediate purpose of being produced in Court.

 xv.    Bail‑bonds in criminal cases, recognizances to prosecute or give evidence, and recognizances for personal appear­ance or otherwise.

 xvi.   6[Omitted]

 xvii.   Petition by a prisoner, or other person in duress or under restraint of any Court or its officers.

 xviii. Complaint” of a public servant (as defined in the Pakistan Penal Code), a municipal officer, or an officer or servant of a Railway Company

 xix.   Application for permission to cut timber in Government forests, or otherwise relating to such forests.

 xx.    Application for the payment of money due by Government to the applicant.

 xxi.   Petition of appeal against the chaukidari assessment under municipal tax.

 xxii.   Applications for compensation under any law for the time being in force relating to the acquisition of property for public purposes.

 xxiii.  7[Omitted by A. O., 1949, Schedule.]

 xxiv. Petitions under the Christian Marriage Act, 1872, sections 45 and 48.

Legal Amendments

1.          Sub Sec.ii Replead by the Amending Act, 1891 (XII of 1891)

2.          Sub Sec iv. Replead by the Cantonments Act, 1889 (XIII of 1889).

3.          Sub Sec          v. Replead by A. O., 1949, Sch.

4.          Sub Sec vi. Replead by A. O., 1949, Sch.

5.          Sub Sec vii. Replead by A. O., 1949, Sch

6.          Sub Sec xvi. Omitted by A. O., 1949, Sch.

7.          Sub Sec. xxiii. Omitted by A. O., 1949, Schedule.

CHAPTER -- III-A Probates, Letters of Administration and certificates of Administration

19-A. Relief where too high a court‑fee has been paid.--- Where any person on applying for the probate of a will or of administration has estimated the property of the deceased to be of greater value than the same has afterwards proved to be, and has consequently paid too high a court‑fee thereon, if, within six months after the true value of the property has been ascertained, such person produces the probate or letters to the Chief Controlling Revenue‑authority for the local area in which the probate or letters has or have been granted,

            and delivers to such Authority a particular inventory and valuation of the property of the deceased, verified by affidavit or affirmation,

            and if such Authority is satisfied that a greater fee was paid on the probate or letters than the law required,

the said Authority may‑

(a)        cancel the stamp on the probate or letters if such stamp has not been already cancelled;

(b)        substitute another stamp for denoting the court‑fee which should have been paid thereon ; and

(c)       make an allowance for the difference between them as in the case of spoiled stamps, or repay the same in money, at his discretion. 

19-B. Relief where debts due from a deceased person have been paid out of his estate.--- Whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of such Authority that an executor or administrator has paid debts due from the deceased to such an amount as, being deducted out of the amount or value of the estate, reduces the same to a sum which, if it had been the whole gross amount or value of the estate, would have occasioned a less court‑fee to be paid on the probate or letters of administration granted in respect of such estate than has been actually paid thereon under this Act,

            Such Authority may return the difference, provided the same be claimed within three years after the date of such probate or letters.

            But when, by reason of any legal proceeding, the debts due from the deceased have not been ascertained and paid, or his effects have not been recovered and made available, and in consequence thereof the executor or administrator is prevented from claiming the return of such difference within the said term of three years, the said Authority may allow such further time for making the claim as may appear to be reasonable under the circumstances.

19-C. Relief in case of several grants.--- Whenever 2[such] a grant of probate or letters of administra­tion has been or is made in respect of the whole of the property be­longing to an estate, and the full fee chargeable under this Act has been or is paid thereon, no fee shall be chargeable under the same Act when a like grant is made in respect of the whole or any part of the same property belonging to the same estate.

            Whenever such a grant has been or is made in respect of any property forming part of an estate, the amount of fees then actually paid under this Act shall be deducted when a like grant is made in respect of property belonging to the same estate, identical with or including the property to which the former grant relates.

19-D. Probates declared valid as to trust‑property though not covered by court‑fee.--- The probate of the will or the letters of administration of the effects of any person deceased heretofore or hereafter granted shall be deemed valid and available by his executors or adminis­trators for recovering, transferring or assigning any moveable or immoveable property whereof or whereto the deceased was posses­sed or entitled, either wholly or partially as a trustee, notwithstand­ing the amount or value of such property is not included in the amount or value of the estate in respect of which a court‑fee was paid on such probate or letters off' administration.

19-E. Provision for case where too low a court‑fee has been paid on probates, etc.--- Where any person on applying for probate or letters of administration has estimated the estate of the deceased to be of less value than the same has afterwards proved to be, and has in conse­quence paid too low a court‑fee thereon, the Chief Controlling Revenue‑authority for the local area in which the probate or letters has or have been granted may, on the value of the estate of the deceased being verified by affidavit or affirmation, cause the probate or letters of administration to be duly stamped on payment of the full court‑fee which ought to have been originally paid thereon in respect of such value and of the further penalty, if the probate or letters is or are produced within one year from the date of grant, of five times, or, if it or they is or are produced after one year from such date, of twenty times, such proper court‑fee, without any deduction of the court‑fee originally paid on such probate or letters:

            Provided that, if the application be made within six months after the ascertainment of the true value of the estate and the discovery that too low a court‑fee was at first paid on the probate or letters, and if the said Authority is satisfied that such fee was paid in consequence of a mistake or of its not being known at the time that some particular part of the estate belonged to the deceased, and without any intention of fraud or to delay the payment of the proper court‑fee, the said Authority may remit the said penalty and cause the probate or letters to be duly stamped on payment only of the sum wanting to make up the fee which should have been at first paid thereon.

19-F. Administrator to give proper security before letters stamped under section 19E.--- In case of letters of administration on which too low a court‑fee has been paid at first, the said Authority shall not cause the same to be duly stamped in manner aforesaid until the administrator has given such security to the Court by which the letters of administration have been granted as ought by law to have been given on the granting thereof in case the full value of the estate of the deceased had been then ascertained.

19‑G. Executors, etc., not paying full Court‑fee on probates, etc.--- within six months after discovery of under‑payment: Where too low a Court‑fee has been paid on any probable or letters of administration in consequence of any mistake, or of its not being known at the time that some particular part of the estate belonged to the deceased, if any executer or administrator acting under such probate or letter does not, within six months after the discovery of the mistake or of any effects not know at the time to have belonged to the deceased, apply to the said Authority and pair what is wanting to make up the Court‑fee which ought to have been paid at first on such probate or letters, he shall forfeit the sum of one thousand rupees and also a further sum at the rate of ten rupees percent on the amount of the sum wanting to make up the proper Court‑fee.

19-H. Notice of applications for probate or letters of adminis­tration to be given to Revenue authorities, and procedure thereon.--- (1) Where an application for probate or letters of ad­ministration is made to any Court other than a High Court, the Court shall cause notice of the application to be given to the Col­lector.

            (2)        Where such an application as aforesaid is made to a High Court, the High Court shall cause notice of the application to be given to the Chief Controlling Revenue‑authority for the local area in which the High Court is situated.

            (3)        The Collector within the local limits of whose revenue­ jurisdiction the property of the deceased or any part thereof is, may at any time inspect or cause to be inspected, and take or cause to be taken copies of, the record of any case in which application for probate or letters of administration has been made ; and if, on such inspection or otherwise, he is of opinion that the peti­tioner has under‑estimated the value of the property of the de­ceased, the Collector may, if he thinks fit, require the attendance of the petitioner (either in person or by agent) and take evidence and inquire into the matter in such manner as he may think fit, and, if he is still of opinion that the value of the property has been under‑estimated, may require the petitioner to amend the valua­tion.

            (4)        If the petitioner does not amend the valuation to the satis­faction of the Collector, the Collector may move the Court before which the application for probate or letters of administration was made, to hold an inquiry into the true value of the property:

            Provided that no such motion shall be made after the expira­tion of six months from the date of the exhibition of the inventory required by section 277 of the Succession Act, 1925 

(5)        The Court, when so moved as aforesaid, shall hold, or cause to be held, an inquiry accordingly, and shall record a find­ing as to the true value, as near as may be, at which the property of the deceased should have been estimated. The Collector shall be deemed to be a party to the inquiry.

            (6)        For the purposes of any such inquiry, the Court or person authorized by the Court to hold the inquiry may examine the peti­tioner for probate or letters of administration on oath (whether in person or by commission), and may take such further evidence as may be produced to prove the true value of the property. The person authorized as aforesaid to hold the inquiry shall return to the Court the evidence taken by him and report the result of the inquiry, and such report and the evidence so taken shall be evidence in the proceeding, and the Court may record a finding in accord­ance with the report, unless it is satisfied that it is erroneous.

(7)        The finding of the Court recorded under sub‑section (5) shall be final, but shall not bar the entertainment and disposal by the Chief Controlling Revenue‑authority of any application under ‑section 19E.

            (8)        The Provincial Government] may make rules for the guidance of Collectors in the exercise of the powers conferred by sub‑section (3).

19-I Payment of court-fees in respect of probates and letters of administration.--- 1) No order entitling  the petitioner to the grant of probate of litters of administration shall be made upon an application for such grant until the petitioner has filed in the Court  of valuation of the property in the form set forth in the Third Schedule, and the Court is satisfied that the fee mentioned in No.11 of the First Schedule has been paid on such valuation.

2)         The grant of probate or letters of administration shall nor be delayed by reason of any motion made by the Collector under Section 19-H, section (4).

19-J. Recovery of penalties, etc.--- 3[‑(1) Any excess fee found to be payable on an inquiry held under section 19H, sub‑section (6), and any penalty or for­feiture under section 19G, may, on the certificate of the Chief Controlling Revenue‑authority, be recovered from the executor or administrator as if it were an arrear of land‑revenue by any Collector 4[****]

(2)        The Chief Controlling Revenue‑authority may remit the whole or any part of any such penalty or forfeiture as aforesaid, or .any part of any penalty under section 19E or of any court‑fee under section 19E in excess of the full court‑fee which ought to have been paid.

19-K. Sections 6 and 28 not to apply.--- to probates or letters of administration:

5[Nothing in section 6 or section 28 shall apply to pro­bates or letters of administration.]

Legal Amendments

1.          Chapter III-A Inserted by the Probate & Administration Act, XIII of 1875. S.6

2.          The word “such” rep. by the Amending Act, 1891 (12 of 1891).

3.          Ins. by the Court‑‑fees Amendment Act, 1899 (11 of 1899), s. 2.

4.          The words “many part of British India Omitted by A.O. 1949, Sch.

5.          Ins. by the Court‑‑fees Amendment Act, 1899 (11 of 1899), s. 2.

CHAPTER -- IV Process-Fees

20. Rules as to cost of processes.--- The High Court shall, as soon as may be, make rules as 1 to the following matters:‑-- 

(i)         The fees chargeable for serving and executing processes issued by such Court in its appellate jurisdiction, and by the other Civil and Revenue Courts established within the local limits of such jurisdiction; 

(ii)        the fees chargeable for serving and executing processes issued by the Criminal Courts established within such limits in the case of offences other than offences for which police‑officers may arrest without a warrant; and 

(iii)       the remuneration of the peons and all other persons employed by leave of a Court in the service or execution of processes. 

The High Court may from time to time alter and add to the rules so made. 

Confirmation and publication of rules. All such rules, alterations and additions shall, after being confirmed by the Provincial Government be published in the official Gazette, and shall thereupon have the force of law. 

Until such rules shall be so made and published, the fees now leviable for serving and executing processes shall continue to be levied, and shall be deemed to be fees leviable under this Act.

20A. Punjab and NWFP Amendments 

Punjab Amendment:

1[20A. (1) Exemption for certain processes: Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding section or in the rules made thereunder, no fee shall be charged for serving and executing processes on behalf of-- 

(a)        the prosecution in any criminal proceedings taken on information presented or complaint made by a public officer acting in his official capacity, and 

(b)        liquidator or an arbitrator appointed under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912. 

2)         The provincial Government may by notification determine what persons shall be deemed to be public officers for the purpose of the preceding sub-section.] 

1.         Punjab Amendment Sub. By the Punjab Act, IV of 1939 

N.W.F.P. Amendment:

1[20A. Exemption for certain processes:

(1)        Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding section or in the rules made thereunder, no fee shall be charged for serving and executing processes on behalf of the prosecution in any criminal proceedings taken on information presented or complaint made by a public officer acting in his official capacity.

2)         The provincial Government may be notification determine what persons shall be deemed to be public officers for the purpose of the preceding sub-section.] 

1.         NWFP Amendment sub. By NWFP Act. VIII of 1942

21. Tables of process‑fees.--- A table in the English and Vernacular languages, show­ing the fees chargeable for such service and execution, shall be exposed to view in a conspicuous part of each Court.

22. Number of peons in District and Subordinate Courts.--- Subject to rules to be made by the High Court and approved by the Provincial Government.

            Every District Judge and every Magistrate of a District shall fix, and may from time to time alter, the number of peons neces­sary to be employed for the service and execution of processes issued out of his Court and each of the Courts subordinate thereto,

Number of peons in Mufassal Small Cause Courts. and for the purposes of this section, every Court of Small Causes established under Act No. XI of 1865 shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court of the District Judge.

23. Number of peons in Revenue Courts.--- Subject to rules to be framed by the Chief Controlling Revenue‑authority and approved by the Provincial Government  every officer performing the functions of a Collector of a District shall fix, and may from time to time alter, the number of peons necessary to be employed for the service and execution of processes issued out of his Court or the Courts subordinate to him.

24. Process served under this Chapter to be held to be process within meaning of Code of Civil Procedure.--- [Replead] 

24. Process served under this Chapter to be held to be process within meaning of Code of Civil Procedure.   1[ Replead]. 

Legal Amendments

1.         S.24 Replead by the Repealing and Amending Act, 1891 (XII of 1891)

CHAPTER -- V of the Mode of levying Fees

25. Collection of fees by stamps.--- All fees referred to in section 3 or chargeable under this Act shall be collected by stamps. 

Court Decisions

All fees to be collected by stamps which should be impressed or adhesive or partly impressed and partly adhesive .No document which had to bear stamp could be of any validity unless and until properly stamped. No document requiring stamp should be filed or acted upon in any proceedings until stamp had been cancelled. Stamps being manifestation of court- fees  as having been paid. Plaintiff s by depositing amount for purchasing stamps with treasury and getting endorsement on challan to that effect that stamps were not available, held, did whatever was within their power in circumstances.  Plaintiff s should be deemed to have satisfied requirement of Court Fees Act, 1870.

1985 C L C 1969

1980 CLC 545; P L D 1970 Lah. 560; P L D 1962 Pesh. 156; 1979 C L C 578; P L D 1970 S C 139; P L D 1972 S C 69; P L D 1983 Lah. 365; P L D 1984 S C 289; P L D 1973 S C 507; PLD 1981 B J 58; 1981 S C M R 381 and 1983 C L C 1256 ref.

26. Stamps to be impressed or adhesive.--- The stamps used to denote any fees chargeable under this Act shall be impressed or adhesive, or partly impressed and partly adhesive, as the Appropriate Government may, by noti­fication in the official Gazette from time to time direct.

27. Rules for supply, number, renewal and keeping accounts of stamps.--- The Appropriate Government may, from time to time, make rules for regulating‑ 

(a)        the supply of stamps to be used under this Act;

(b)        the number of stamps to be used for denoting any fee chargeable under this Act;

            (c)        the renewal of damaged or spoiled stamps; and

            (d)        the keeping accounts of all stamps used under this Act

            Provided that, in the case of stamps used under section 3 in a High Court, such rules shall be made with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of such Court.

            All such rules shall be published in the official Gazette and shall thereupon have the force of law.

28. Stamping documents inadvertently received.--- No document which ought to bear a stamp under this Act shall be of any validity, unless and until it is properly stamped.

            But, if any such document is through mistake or inadvertence received, filed or used in any Court or office without being properly stamped, the presiding Judge or the head of the office, as the case may be, or, in the case of a High Court, any Judge of such Court, may, if he thinks fit, order that such document be stamped as he may direct ; and, on such document being stamped accordingly, the same and every proceeding relative thereto shall be as valid as if it had been properly stamped in the first instance.

Court Decisions

Defect/deficiency in court‑fee - Remedy - Where document required to bear a court‑fee stamp of specified amount was inadvertently presented/received in Court without being properly stamped, an opportunity had to be given to the party concerned to pay proper court‑fee. P L D 1993 Lah.90

1985 CLC 2877; AIR 1935 Lah.124(2); and 1981 Law Notes (NUC) (SC) 214 ref.

Provisions of Court-Fees Act though not intended to arm litigant with weapons of technically against opponent provisions of s. 28 of Act as well as S. 149 of Civil Procedure Code to be exception to such rule.  P.L.J.1984 Lah. 185.

Unless required amount of court‑fee chargeable on document (which term includes plaint also) as was indicated in schedules, was not paid, it shall not be taken to be of any validity‑‑Such rule however, does not lead to a necessary corollary that the plaint which was not adequately stamped was not a 'proper plaint' at all in the eyes ‑of law and further that for the limitation purposes suit shall be deemed to have been instituted only when proper and required court‑fee was paid on it. 1987 C L C 2428

Memorandum of appeal. Deficiency in court- fees. Effect. Appeal against the order of Rent Controller having force of decree was governed by Art. 1 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act and ad valorem court- fees was payable on the. Subject matter of the dispute .Words “if he thinks fit” occurring in S.28, their significance and effect .Such words give discretion to the Court in the matter. .­Circumstances when exercise of discretion by Court in favour of defaulting party not considered proper. Negligence and contumacy on the part of defaulting party disentitle him to exercise of discretion in his favour.

Under the law; a plaint or a memorandum of appeal cannot be considered to be properly filed as long as it does not bear the requisite court- fees  on the amount of Rs.90,000 which was the value of the subject-matter of the dispute according to the tenant's own claim. According to the claim of the landlord, the value of the subject-matter was Rs.1,80,000. The tenant opted to pay Court-fee of Rs.15 only and did not make good the deficiency despite an objection raised by the landlord in that behalf. No application was made by the tenant, at any stage, during the pendency of the appeal for permission to make good the deficiency of the court-fee. Instead, the tenant hotly contested the landlords' objection to the deficiency of court-fee. It was not a case involving wrong estimation of net profits or market value resulting in insufficient or excess payment of court-fee. Hence, the provisions of section 10 of the Court Fees Act were not relevant. Similarly, there was no mistake or inadvertence in filing the appeal with insufficient court-fee so as to entitle the tenant to exercise of discretion in his favour under section 28 of the Court Fees Act. It was a case in which the tenant consciously and deliberately chose to pay a court-fee of Rs.15 on the memorandum of appeal, which, according to the First Part of section 28 of the Act, was of no validity. Even if it is found that the memorandum of appeal was received by the Court through mistake or inadvertence, it was entirely for the appellate Court to order that the appeal be stamped with the requisite court-fee. The use of the words “if he thinks fit” gives discretion to the Court in the matter. In the present case, the Court took into account all the relevant circumstances and did not think it to be a fit case for exercise of discretion in the matter of allowing an opportunity to the petitioner to make good the deficiency in the court-fee. The discretion did not appear to have been exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Hence, no interference was called for in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court In the present case the tenant acted with negligence and contumacy. On the one hand despite alleging that the monthly rent of the property was Rs.7,500, he failed to pay the court-fee on the annual rental value of the property and on the other stubbornly insisted that the calculation and determination must be made by the Court and then he would pay it. Such a demand may be countenanced in a case in which there is some 'confusion, or ambiguity or difficulty in calculating the value of the subject-matter of dispute. In the present case, there was no such ambiguity, confusion or difficulty. Hence, the appellate Court was justified in not exercising the discretion in favour of the tenant. In the present case the tenant had acted with gross negligence and his conduct reflected contumacy calling for no indulgence on the part of the Court. The impugned order could not be termed to be either without jurisdiction or without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court below had not been shown to have exercised its discretionary power in an arbitrary, capricious or injudicious manner. P L D 1991 Lah. 1 PLD 1984 SC 289; 1985 CLC 2495; 1987 CLC 2428; 1988 CLC 1711; PLD 1974 Note 32 at p. 69; PLD 1987 Lah. 145 and 1989 SCMR 1791 distinguished.

PLD 1977 Lah. 1058; NLR 1980 Civil (Lah.) 160 and 1986 MLD 692 rel. 

Making up of Deficiency in court-fees payable at trial stage discovered during appeal-Party to be allowed time to supply deficiency even at appeal stage-Proceedings have to be stayed till payment of proper fee Contumacy at that stage only, shall ensue consequences like that of non-prosecution as provided under S. 10(ii), Court Fees Act, 1870 subject to further extension of time under S. 148, C. P. C. and only than plaint can be dismissed on account of such non-compliance with order of appellate Court Section 28, Court Fees Act, 1870 or for that matter other relevant provisions would remain subject to O. VII, r. 11, C. P. C. to be applied in mandatory sense-Court on discovery of deficiency in court-fees, shall as an obligation, direct party concerned to supply said deficiency within time to be specified and on party's failure to do so, of course subject to other provisions of law in that behalf, shall have to reject plaint or appeal as case may be.- P L D 1984 S.C . 289

Mst. Walayat Khatun's case P L D .1979 S C 821 ; Muhammad Nawaz Khan v. Makhdoom Syed Ghulam MuJtaba Shah P L D 1970 S C 37 and Shah Nawaz v. Muhammad Yousuf and 3 others 1972 S C M R 179 ref.

It is not lawful to reject a plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. without first granting time to the plaintiff to supply the deficient court-fee. Order VII, rule 11 is in a way a penal provision and shall be construed strictly so as not to be resorted to unless the conditions for exercise of such drastic power are satisfied. In the clause relevant here namely it is provided that the plaint shall be rejected thereunder only when after the grant of requisite time the plaintiff has failed to supply the required/specified court-fee. Thus, it is mandatory and obligatory for the Court to grant time under clause The question of discretion does not arise. And it is so whether the occasion arises at the very institution of the plaint of at a later stage. P L D 1984 S.C. 289

Mst. Walayat Khatun's .case P L D 1979 S C 821 clarified.

Muhammad Nawaz Khan v. Makhdoom Syed Ghulam MuJtaba Shah P L D 1970 S C 37 and Shah Nawaz v. Muhammad Yousaf and 3 others 1972 SCMR179 ref.

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. 1989 M L D 1103 

Limitation. Land Reforms Regulation, Unless required amount of court- fees chargeable on document (which term includes plaint also) as was indicated in schedules, was not paid, it shall not be taken to be of any validity. Such rule however, does not lead to a necessary corollary that the plaint which was not adequately stamped was not a 'proper plaint' at all in the eyes .of law and further that for the limitation purposes suit shall be deemed to have been instituted only when proper and required court- fees  was paid on it. 1987 C L C 2428

P L D 1984 SC 289 ref. 

Payment of proper court-fee, a pre-condition for trial of a suit-Payment of proper court-fee, held, was a pre-condition to be fulfilled by a plaintiff for having his suit tried-Court was required to hold up decision of a suit until after requisite court-fee was paid-Where court-fee was not paid despite opportunity provided in accordance with law for its payment and suit was perforce to be dismissed on account of default, even then obligation to direct that court-fee was to be recovered from defaulting party still remained-Practice of Courts whereby suits for default in payment of court-fee were dismissed without direction to recovery of court-fee depreciated by High Court. High Court in exercise of powers under S. 28 of Court Fees Act directed Collector immediately to recover court-fee from defaulting parties, whose causes though decided by Courts were still liable to pay requisite court-fee. P L D 1987 Lah. 127

29. Amended document.--- Where any such document is amended in order merely to correct a mistake and to make it conform to the original inten­tion of the parties, it shall not be necessary to impose a fresh stamp.

30. Cancellation of stamp.--- No document requiring a stamp under this Act shall be filed or acted upon in any proceeding in any Court or office until the stamp has been cancelled.

            Such officer as the Court or the head of the office may from time to time appoint shall, on receiving any such document, forth­with effect such cancellation by punching out the crescent and star so as to leave the amount designated on the stamp untouched, and the part removed by punching shall be burnt or otherwise destroyed: 

Provided that:--           1 [Omitted ]

Legal Amendments 

1.         Proviso Omitted by the Federal Laws (Revision and Declaration) Ordinance, XXXVII of 1981 

Court Decisions

 Purpose and object - All fees to be collected by stamps which should be impressed or adhesive or partly impressed and partly adhesive-No document which had to bear stamp could be of any validity unless and until properly stamped-No document requiring stamp should be filed or acted upon in any proceedings until stamp had been cancelled Stamps being manifestation of court-fees as having been paid-Plaintiff s by depositing amount for purchasing stamps with treasury and getting endorsement on challan to that effect that stamps were not available, held, did whatever was within their power in circumstances- Purpose of court-fees being to secure revenue to State, deposit of requisite money for purchase of stamp by plaintiff s should be deemed to have satisfied requirement of Court Fees Act, 1870-Failure to supply requisite stamps within time could not be placed upon plaintiff s in circumstances. 1985 C L C 1969

Muhammad Sharif Khan v. Ghulam Farid and 4 others 1980 CLC 545; Fazal Muhammad v. Muhammad Usman P L D 1970 Lah. 560; Qasim Shah v. Mst. Beebian P L D 1962 Pesh. 156; Sanaullah v. Muhammad Akhtar and 11 others 1979 C L C 578; Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another P L D 1970 S C 139; Malik Hidayat Ullah v. Murad Ali Khan P L 1) 1972 S C 69; Mst. Fazal Begum v. Bahadur Khan and another P L D 1983 Lah. 365; Siddiq Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakoor Khan and another P L D 1984 S C 289; Bashir Ahmad Khan v. Qaiser Ali Khan and 2 others P L D 1973 S C 507; Barkat Ali and 4 others v. Mst. Zainab and others PLD 1981 B J 58; Hidayat Ullah and another v. Muhammad Ibrahim and another 1981 S C M R 381 and Malik Sikandar Khan v . Shah Muhammad and 3 others 1983 C L C 1256 ref.

CHAPTER -- VI Miscellaneous

31. Payment of fees paid on applications to Criminal Courts [Repealed]

Legal Amendments

1.         S. 31 Repealed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1923 (XVIII of 1923), s. 163.

32. Amendment of Act VIII of 1859 and Act IX of 1869 [Repealed]

Legal Amendments

1.         S.32 Repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act, 1891 (XII of 1891).

33. Admission in criminal cases of documents for which proper fee has not been paid.--- Whenever the filing or exhibition in a Criminal Court of a document in respect of which the proper fee has not been paid is, in the opinion of the presiding Judge, necessary to prevent a failure of justice, nothing contained in section 4 or section 6 shall be deemed to prohibit such filing or exhibition.

34. Sale of stamps.--- (1) The Appropriate Government may from time to time make rules for regulating the sale of stamps to be used under this Act, the persons by whom alone such sale is to be conducted, and the duties and remuneration of such persons.

            (2)        All such rules shall be published in the official Gazette, and shall thereupon have the force of law.

 (3)       Any person appointed to sell stamps who disobeys any rule made under this section, and any person not so appointed who sells or offers for sale any stamp, shall be punished with im­prisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

35. Power to reduce or remit fees.--- The Appropriate Government may, from time to, time by notification in the official Gazette reduce or remit in the whole or in any part of the territories under its adminis­tration all or any of the fees mentioned in the first and second schedules to this Act annexed, and may in like manner cancel or, vary such order.

Court Decisions

S. 35 When read with Punjab Government Notifications No. 5487.78/ 1809.ST.I, dated 9.7.1978 and No. 353.80/248.ST.I dated 4.2.1980­Court- fees , exemption from payment of. Court Fees Act, 1870.A fiscal enactment. Provisions of Court Fees Act, 1870 as well as pro­visions of exemption notifications, hence, to be strictly construed against persons claiming exemption. Exemption also to be confined to extent permissible by express language of instrument itself and not to be extended beyond. Notification allowing exemption dated 9.7.1978 making specific mention of plaints under Art. I of Sched. I to Court Fees Act, 1870 and Art. 1 besides plaints also making mention of written statements, pleading, set off, counterclaim, memorandum of appeal not otherwise provided for in Act as well as of cross objections, specific mention of “plaint” and Art. 1 of Sched. I, held, would naturally signify law maker's intention not to give same benefit to other documents mentioned in same article including memorandum of appeal and to distinguish plaint from memorandum of appeal. Contention as to court- fees  being not payable on memo. of appeal in view of Notification dated 9.7.1978 in circumstances repelled. P L D 1982 Lah. 218 P L D 1979 Pesh. 33; P L D 1966 S C 828; 1973 P T D 361 and P L D 1978 Lah. 716 ref.

Court-fee, remission of-Findings of appellate Court that words “civil suits” and words at all stages not cover an appeal and that Schedule to Court Fees Act only covered documents and as Government could only remit fees on documents, no remission could be granted under S. 35 in respect of suits generally, to cover every step in litigation up to appellate or revisional stage, held, not correct Such findings suffer from too rigid an approach.   P L D 1983 Lah. 383

35A. Variation of rates.--- 1[(1) The ad Valorem fees leviable on the institution of suits specified in Schedule I [as amended before the promulgation of the Court‑fees (Amendment) Ordinance, 1962, by any Central or Provincial Act] shall be reduced by fifteen per centum where the value of the subject‑matter exceeds two thousand rupees but does not exceed fifteen thousand rupees ; and shall be increased by fifteen per centum where the value of the subject‑matter exceeds fifteen thousand rupees.

            (2)        The amount of fee leviable after reduction of increase provided for in sub‑section (1) shall be calculated to the nearest rupee or half rupee, whichever it may be.]

Legal Amendments

1.         Sec. 35-A has been replead by the Punjab finance Act, XIV of 1973, S.8(b) for Punjab

Court Decisions

Provision varies rates as laid down under Sch. I of Act. Does not repeal, amend or disturb maximum limits of court fee laid down in Schedule. P L D 1966 (W. P.) Kar. 42

36. Saving of fees to certain officers of High Courts.--- Nothing in Chapters II and V of this Act applies  to the fees which any officer of a High Court is allowed to receive in addition to a fixed salary.

SCHEDULES

PUNJAB SCHEDULE I

 

Ad Valorem Fees

Serial No

Article

proper Fee

1

2

3

1

 

 

 

 

 

Note.   

 

 

 

Plant, written statement pleading a set–off or counter claim or memorandum of appeal (not otherwise provided for in this Act) or of cross-objection presented to any civil or revenue Court except those mentioned in section 3.

 

The amount payable under this number shall be rounded to the nearest fifty paias.

Eight and a half percentum on the amount or value of the subject –matter in dispute subject to a maximum of thirty four thousand rupees.

2

 Plaint in a suit for possession under the Specific Relief Act, 1877, Section 9. 

A fee of one-half the amount prescribed in serial No. 1.

3

Application for review of judgment, if presented on or after the ninetieth day from the date of the decree.

The fee leviable on the plaint memorandum of appeal

4

Application for review of judgment, if presented before the ninetieth day from the date of the decree.

One- Half of the fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal.

5

Copy or translation of a judgment or order not being, or having the force of, a decree-

 

     a)When such judgment or order is passed by any civil court , other than a High Court, or by the presiding officer of any Revenue Court  or officer, or by any other judicial or Executive Authority.

 

    b) When such judgment or order is passed by a High Court.

 

 

 

 

 

One rupees

 

 

 

Two rupees

 

6

Copy of a dccree or order having the Force of decree:-                             

 

     a) When such decree or order is made by any civil court other than a High Court, or any Revenue Court

 

     (i) If the amount or     value of the subject-matter of the suit wherein such decree or order is made does not exceed fifty rupees.

 

      (ii)   If such amount or value exceeds fifty rupees.

 

   (b)  When such decree or order is   made by High Court.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One rupee.

 

Two rupees.

 

 

Five rupees.

 

7

Copy of any document liable to stamp duty under the Stamp Act, 1899 when left by any party to suit or proceeding in place of the original with drawn:-

 

     a)When the stamp duty chargeable on the original does not exceed fifty paisas;

 

 

b) In any other case

The amount

Or duty chargeable on the original.

 

One rupee

8

Copy of any revenue or judicial proceeding or order not otherwise provided for by this Act, or copy of any account, statement report or the like ,taken out or any Civil or Criminal or Revenue Court or office or from the office of any chief officer charged with the executive administration of a Division-

For every three hundred and sixty words or fraction of three hundred and sixty words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fifty paisas.

9

Probate of a will or letter of  administration with or without will annexed—

 

Fifteen rupees

10

Certificate under the Succession Act,1925—

 

Fifteen rupees

11

Application to the Board of Revenue/Commissioners of Divisions for the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act,1887—

 

      When the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute does not exceed twenty- five rupees.

 

      When such amount or value exceeds twenty-five rupees.

 

 

 

 

 

Two rupees

 

 

 

The fee leviable on a memorandum of appeal

12

Application to a High court for the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the code of civil procedure ,1908—

 

         Where the application is for revision of an order and the amount or value of the subject-matter is less than two thousand rupees.

 

         When the application is for the revision of an order and subject matter is two thousand rupees or more.

 

       Where the application is for the revision of an appellate decree.

 

 

 

 

Seven rupees and fifty paisas

 

 

Fifteen rupees

 

 

 

The fee leviable on memorandum of appeal.

 

 

PUNJAB SCHEDULE II

 

FIXED RATES

Serial NO

ARTICLE

PROPER FEE

1

2

3

1

Application or petition -

 

   a)   When presented to any officer of the Customs or Excise Department or to any Magistrate by any person having dealing with the Government and when the subject-mater of such application relates exclusively to those dealings; or

         When presented to any officer of land-revenue by any person holding temporarily settled land under direct engagement with Government and when the subject-matter of the application or petition relates exclusively to such engagement; or

       When presented to any civil Court other than a principal civil Court   of original jurisdiction or to any court of small Causes constituted under the provincial Small Cause Court, Act 1887 or to a Collector or to a Collector or other officer of revenue in relation to any suit or case in which the amount or value of subject-matter is less than fifty rupees; or

     When presented to any Civil, Criminal or Revenue court, or to any Board or Executive officer for the purpose of obtaining a copy or translation of any judgment, decree or order passed by such Court, Board or officer, or of any other document or record in such Court or office;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One Rupee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

        b) When containing a complaint or charge of any offence other than an offence for which police officers may  under the Code of Criminal procedure, 1898 , arrest without warrant, and present to any Criminal court; or

 

       When presented to a Civil Criminal or Revenue Court, or to a collector or any Revenue officer, having jurisdiction equal or subordinate to a collector or to any Magistrate in his executive capacity and not otherwise provided for by this Act; or

      to deposit in court revenue or rent ; or

 for determination by a court of the compensation to bepaid by a landlord to his tenant.

 

 C)  i) When presented to a Chief controlling Revenue or Executive Authority , or to a Commissioner of Revenue or Circuit or to any Chief officer charged with executive administration of a Division and not otherwise provided by this Act,

 

  ii)  When presented to a Court or Authority other than a High Court , for transfer of cases.

 

       d)  When presented to a High Court-

 

i)  Under the Companies Act, 1913 for winding up a company.

 

ii)  Under the said Act for taking some other judicial action

 

iii)   For transfer of cases

 

iv)    In all other cases

 

 

 

Application to any civil Court that records may be called for from another Court-

      When the Court grants the application and is of the opinion that the transmission of such records involves the use of the post.

 

Two Rupees

 

 

 

 

 

Two Rupees

 

 

 

 

 

Two Rupees

Two Rupees

 

 

 

Two Rupees

 

 

 

 

 

 

Five rupees

 

 

 

 

Two hundred rupees

 

Ten rupees

 

 

Five rupees

 

Five rupees

 

 

 

Three rupees in addition to any fee levied on the application under clause. (a), clause (b)

Or clause (c ) of number 1 or this schedule.

3.

Application for leave to sue as a pauper

Two rupees

4

Application for leave to appeal as a pauper

 

Two rupees

 

5

Plaint or memorandum of appeal in a suit to establish or disprove a right of occupancy

 

Two rupees

6

Undertaking under section 49 of the Divorce Act, 1869.

 

One rupee

7

 Mukhtamama or wokalatnama when presented for the conduct of  any one case-

 

(a)  to any Civil or Criminal court, other than a High court or to any Revenue Court, or to any Collector or Magistrate , or other executive officer, except such as are mentioned in clause (b) and (c) of this number;

 

(b) to commissioner of revenue Circuit or Customs or to any officer charged with the executive administration of a Division , not being the Chief Revenue or Executive Authority .

 

(c) to a High Court, board of Revenue or other Chief Controlling Revenue of Executive Authority

 

 

 

 

Two rupees

 

 

 

 

 

Two rupees

 

 

 

 

 

Three rupees

8

Memorandum of appeal when the appeal is not from a decree or an order having he force of a decree and is presented--

 

(a) to any civil court other than a High Court, or to any Revenue Court or Executive officer other than the High court or chief Controlling Revenue or Excise Authority;

 

(b) to the Central Board of Revenue under Section 188 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 or section 35 of the central Excise and Salt Act, 1944;

 

(c ) to High Court or other Chief Controlling Executive or Revenue Authority

 

 

 

 

Three rupees

 

 

 

 

Twenty-five rupees

 

 

 

 

Ten rupees

9

Caveat

Ten rupees

10

Petition in a suit under the Native Converts’ Marriage Dissolution Act, 1866

Ten rupees

11

Plaint or memorandum of appeal in each of the following suits--

 

      (i) to alter or set aside a summary decision or order of any civil Court, not being a High Court ; or any Revenue Court;

   

     (ii) to alter or cancel any entry in a register of the names of proprietors of Revenue-paying estates;

 

    (iii) to obtain a declaratory decree when no consequential relief is prayed;

 

(iv) to set aside an award;

 

(v) to set aside an adoption ;

 

(vi) to set aside an alienation;

 

(vii) every other where it is not possible to estimate at a money-value the subject-matter in dispute, and which Is not otherwise provided for by this Act;

 

 

 

Ten rupees

 

 

 

Ten rupees

 

 

 

Thirty rupees

 

 

Ten rupees

 

Ten rupees

 

Fifteen rupees

 

Ten rupees

12

Application under Chapter III of the Arbitration Act, 1940

Twenty rupees

13

Agreement in writing stating a question for the opinion of the Court  under the Code of Civil procedure,1908

 

Twenty rupees

14

Every petition under the Divorce Act, 1869 except petitions under section 44 of the same Act, and every memorandum of appeal under section 55 of the same Act.

Twenty rupees

15

Plant or memorandum of appeal under the parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.

Twenty rupees

16

Paint or memorandum of appeal in a suit by a reversionary under the Punjab customary law for a declaration in respect of an alienation of ancestral land.

Twenty rupees

17

For determination of fair rent or eviction of tenant under sections 4 and 13 of the west Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (VI of 1959)—

 

    (i) Where the property involved is exempted from property. Tax under the West Pakistan urban Immovable property Tax Act.

 

   (ii) Where such property is assessed to Urban Immovable property Tax.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Five rupees

 

 

 

Fifteen rupees

 

SIND SCHEDULE I

 

AD VALOREM FEES

Serial No

Article

Proper fee

1

2

3

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note.

Plant ,written statement pleading a set–   off or counterclaim or memorandum of appeal (not otherwise provided for in this Act)or of cross-objection presented to any civil or revenue Court  except those mentioned in section 3.

 

 

 

The amount payable under this        number shall be rounded to the nearest fifty paisas.

 

Seven and a half percentum on the amount or value of the subject –matter in dispute but the fee shall not exceed maximum of fifteen thousand rupee.

2

Plaint in a suit for possession under the Specific Relief Act, 1877 ,Section 9.

 

A fee of one-half the amount prescribed in serial No.1.

 

3

Application for review of judgment ,        if presented on or after the ninetieth day from the date of the decree.

The fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal .

4

Application for review of judgment, if presented before the ninetieth day from the date of the decree.

One- Half of the fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal.

5

Copy or translation of a judgment or order not being, or having the force of, a decree-

 

   a)  When such judgment or order is passed by any civil court , other than a High Court, or by the presiding officer of any Revenue Court  or officer, or by any other judicial or Executive Authority.

 

  b)  When such judgment or order is passed by a High Court.

 

 

 

 

 

 

One rupees

 

 

 

Two rupees

6

Copy of a dccree or order having the                                      force of decree

 

(a) When such decree or order is made by any civil court other than a High Court, or any Revenue Court

 

  i) If the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit wherein such decree or order is made does not exceed fifty rupees.

 

  ii) If such amount or value exceeds fifty rupees.

 

  b) When such decree or order is   made by High Court

 

 

 

One rupees

 

 

 

Two rupees

 

 

 

Five rupees

 

 

 

7

Copy of any document liable to stamp duty under the Stamp Act, 1899 when left by any party to suit or proceeding in place of the original withdrawn-

  a)  When the stamp duty chargeable on the original does not exceed fifty paisas;

 

In any other case

 

 

 

 

 

The amount of the duty chargeable on the original

One rupee

8

Copy of any revenue or judicial proceeding or order not otherwise provided for by this Act, or copy of any account, statement report or the like ,taken out or any Civil or Criminal or Revenue Court or office or from the office of any chief officer charged with the executive administration of a Division-

 

    For over three hundred and sixty words or fraction of three hundred and sixty words

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fifty paisas.

9

Omitted

 

 

10

Omitted

 

11

Appeal or revision application under the Sind Tenancy Act, 1950--

 

When the amount or value of the subject matter in dispute does not exceed twenty-five rupees.

 

When such amount or value exceed twenty-five rupees.

 

 

 

Two rupees

 

 

The fee leviable on memorandum of appeal.

12

Revision application to the high court under  section 115 of the code of civil procedure, 1908.

 

Where the application is for revision of an order and the amount or value of the subject-matter is less than two Thousand rupees.

 

When the application is for the revision of an order and subject-matter is two Thousand rupees or more.

 

Where the application is for the revision of an appellate decree.

 

 

 

Seven rupees and fifty paisas.

 

 

Fifteen rupees.

 

 

 

The fee leviable on a memorandum of appeal.

13

Omitted

 

13A

  a)  Probate of a will or letters of administration with or without will annexed.

 

  b)  Certificate under Part X of the Succession Act,

 

  c)  Certificate under the Sind Regulation VIII of 1827.

 

 

 

Fifteen rupees

 

 

 

 

SIND SCHEDULE II

 

See Section 3 (c )

FIXED RATES

 

S.NO

ARTICLE

PROPER FEE

1

2

3

1

Application or petition -

 

a) When presented to any officer of the Customs or Excise Department or to any Magistrate by any person having dealing with the Government and when the subject-mater of such application relates exclusively to those dealings;

  or When presented to any officer of land-revenue by any person holding temporarily settled land under direct engagement with Government and when the subject-matter of the application or petition relates exclusively to such engagement;

 

  Or When Presented to any Municipal Committee under any Act for the time being in force for the conservancy or improvement of any place, if the application or petition relates solely to such conservancy or improvement; 

   or When presented to any civil Court other than a principal civil Court   of original jurisdiction or to any court of small Causes constituted under the provincial Small Cause Court ,Act 1887 or to a Collector or to a Collector or other officer of revenue in relation to any suit or case in which the amount or value of subject-matter is less than fifty rupees;

    or When presented to any Civil, Criminal or Revenue court, or to any Board or Executive officer for the purpose of obtaining a copy or translation of any judgment, decree or order passed by such Court ,Board or officer, or of any other document or record in such Court or office;

 

          b) When Presented to a collector or other officer of revenue for assistance under West Pakistan Land revenue Act, 1967.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(a) Ordinary 50 Paisa  (b)   Urgent One Rupee

 

 

 

 

 

 

One Rupees

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   c) When containing a complaint or charge of any offence other than an offence for which police officers may , under the Code of Criminal procedure, 1898 , arrest without warrant, and present to any Criminal court;

 

      Or When presented to a Civil Criminal or Revenue Court, or to a collector or any Revenue officer, having jurisdiction equal or subordinate to a collector or to any Magistrate in his executive capacity and not otherwise provided for by this Act;

 

      Or to deposit in court revenue or rent ;

 

      Or for determination by a court of the compensation to be paid by a landlord to his tenant.

 

      Or When presented to a Chief controlling Revenue or Executive Authority , or to a Commissioner of Revenue or Circuit or to any Chief officer charged with executive administration of a Division and not otherwise provided by this Act,

 

      d) When presented to a Court or Authority other than a High Court , for transfer of cases.

 

      e) When presented to a High Court-

      i)  Under the Companies Act, 1913 for winding up a company.

 

     ii)  Under the said Act for taking some other judicial action

 

     iii)   For transfer of cases

 

    iv)    In all other cases

 

Provided that for a miscellaneous application presented in a case of original jurisdiction, the fee shall be the same as is paid on such application presented in a civil Court.

 

Application to any civil Court that records may be called for from another Court-

      When the Court grants the application and is of the opinion that the transmission of such records involves the use of the post.

 

 

One  Rupees

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One rupees

 

 

Two Hundred Rupees

 

 

Ten Rupees

 

 

Five Rupees

 

Five Rupees

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Three rupees in addition to any fee levied on the application under Serial number 1 of the  schedule.

3

Application for leave to sue as a pauper

Two rupees

4

Application for leave to appeal as a pauper

 

Two rupees

 

5

Plaint or memorandum of appeal in a suit to obtain possession under Mukhtiarkar’s Courts Act, 1906.

Two rupees

6

Plaint or memorandum of Appeal in a suit to establish or disprove a right occupancy.

Two rupee

7

Bail bond or other instrument of obligation given in pursuance of an a order made by a Court or Magistrate under any section of the code of Criminal procedure ,1898 or the code of civil procedure, 1908 and not otherwise provided for by this Act. 

One rupees

 

 

 

 

 

8

Undertaking under section 49 of the Divorce Act, 1969.

One Rupee

 

 

9

Mukhtamama or wokalatnama when presented for the conduct of  any one case-

 

  a) to any Civil or Criminal court, other than a High court or to any Revenue Court, or to any Collector or Magistrate , or other executive officer, except such as are mentioned in clause (b) and (c) of this number;

 

  b)  to commissioner of revenue Circuit or Customs or to any officer charged with the executive administration of a Division , not being the Chief Revenue or Executive Authority .

 

  c)  to a High Court, board of Revenue or other Chief Controlling Revenue of Executive Authority .

 

 

 

 

Two rupees

 

 

 

 

 

Two Rupees

 

 

 

 

 

Three Rupees

10

Memorandum of appeal when the appeal is not from a decree or an order having he force of a decree and is presented--

 

  a)  to any civil court other than a High Court, or to any Revenue Court or Executive officer other than the High court or chief Controlling Revenue or Excise Authority;

 

  b)   to the Central Board of Revenue under Section 188 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 or section 35 of the central Excise and Salt Act, 1944;

 

  c)  to High Court or other Chief Controlling Executive or Revenue Authority

 

 

 

 

Three rupees

 

 

 

 

Twenty Five Rupees

 

 

 

Ten Rupees

11

Caveat

 

Ten rupees

 

12

Plaint or memorandum of appeal in each of following suits-

 

    i)to alter or set aside a summary decision or order of any civil Court, not being a High Court ; or any Revenue Court;

 

   ii)   to alter or cancel any entry in a register of the names of proprietors of Revenue-paying estates;

 

   iii) to obtain a declaratory decree when no consequential relief is prayed;

 

   iv) to set aside an award--

 

      when the amount or value of the property involved does not exceed five hundred rupees.

 

     When the amount or value of the property involved exceeds five hundred rupees.

 

  v) to set aside an adoption ;

 

  vi) to set aside an alienation;

 

  vii) Where it is not possible to estimate the money value of the subject-matter in dispute and which is not otherwise provided for by this Act.

 

 

 

 

Ten rupees

 

 

 

Fifteen Rupees

 

 

 

Twenty five rupees

 

 

Ten Rupees

 

 

 

 

Fifteen Rupees

 

 

Fifteen Rupees

 

Fifteen Rupees

 

Fifteen Rupees

13

Application--

 

   a) for probate or letters or administration or for revocation thereof under the Succession Act, 1925;

 

  b)  for a certificate under Part X of the Succession Act, 1925 or Sind Regulation VIII of 1827.

 

  When the amount or value of the estate does not exceed two thousand rupees.

 

  When it exceed two thousand rupees but does not exceed five Thousand rupees.

 

  When it exceeds five thousand rupees.

     

c) for opinion or advice or for discharge from a Trustees, under section 34, 72, 73 or 74 of the Trusts Act, 1882;

 

     d) for  the winding up of a company under section 166 of the companies Act, 1913;

 

     e) under rule 58 of Order XXI if the code of Civil procedure, 1908 regarding a claim to attached property-

 

    When the amount or value of the Property exceeds five hundred rupees.

 

 

 

Ten rupees

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two Rupees

 

 

Five Rupees

 

 

Ten Rupees

 

Ten Rupees

 

 

 

Ten Rupees

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ten Rupees

14

Application under Chapter III of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

 

Twenty rupees

15

Agreement in writing stating a question for the opinion of the Court  under the Code of Civil procedure,1908

 

Twenty rupees

16

Every petition under the Divorce Act, 1869 except petitions under section 44 of the same Act, and every memorandum of appeal under section 55 of the same Act.

 

Thirty rupees

17

Plaint or memorandum of appeal under the parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.

 

Thirty rupees

 

 

18

Application or appeal for determination ] of fair rent or eviction of a tenant under section 4 and 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance , 1959:-

  

  i) Where the property involved is exempted from property. Tax under the Sind  urban Immovable property Tax Act ,1958.

    

  ii) Where such property is assessed to Urban Immovable property Tax.

 

 

 

 

 

Five Rupees

 

 

 

Fifteen Rupees

 

 

19

Election petition questioning the election of any person :-

    

      a)  As a member of a Local Board other than a notified or Town Area Committee;

 

     b)  As a member of a notified or Town Area Committee.

 

 

 

 

Hundred Rupees

 

 

Ten Rupees

20

Omitted by Sind Ordinance, 11 of 1979 w.e.f. 1/7/1979.

 

 

BALUCHISTAN SCHEDULE 1

 

First Schedule

Ad Valorem Fees

 

S. No

Article

proper Fee

1

2

3

1

Plant ,written statement pleading a set –off or counterclaim or memorandum of appeal (not otherwise provided for in this Ordinance)or of cross-objection presented to any civil or revenue Court  except those mentioned in section 3.

Note. The amount payable under this        number shall be rounded to the nearest fifty paisas.

 

 

Seven and a half  percentum of the amount or value of the subject –matter in dispute but the  fee  shall not exceed maximum of Fifteen  thousand  rupees

2

Plaint in a suit for possession under the Specific Relief Act, 1877 ,Section 9.

A fee of one-half the amount prescribed in serial No.1.

 

3

Application for review of judgment ,        if presented on or after the ninetieth day from the date of the dccree.

 

 

The fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal

4

Application for review of judgment, if presented before the ninetieth day from the date of the decree.

 

One- Half of the fee leviable on the plaint or memorandum of appeal.

 

5

Copy or translation of a judgment or order not being, or having the force of, a decree-

 

   a)When such judgment or order is passed by any civil court , other than a High Court, or by the presiding officer of any Revenue Court  or officer, or by any other judicial or Executive Authority.

 

    b)  When such judgment or order is passed by a High Court.

 

 

 

 

One rupees.

 

 

 

 

 

Two Rupees

6

Copy of a dccree or order having the                                      force of decree

    a) When such decree or order is made by any civil court other than a High Court, or any Revenue Court

   i) If the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit wherein such decree or order is made does not exceed fifty rupees.

 

ii) If such amount or value exceeds fifty rupees.

 

b)When such decree or order is   made by High Court.

 

 

 

 

 

 

One Rupees

 

 

 

Two rupees.

 

 

Five rupees.

7

Copy of any document liable to stamp duty under the Stamp Act, 1899 when left by any party to suit or proceeding in place of the original withdrawn--

    

a)When the stamp duty chargeable on the original does not exceed fifty paisas;

 

   

 b)In any other case

 

 

 

 

 

 

The amount or duty chargeable on the original.

 

One rupee

 

8

Copy of any revenue or judicial proceeding or order not otherwise provided for by this Act, or copy of any account, statement report or the like ,taken out or any Civil or Criminal or Revenue Court or office or from the office of any chief officer charged with the executive administration of a Division-

For every three hundred and sixty words or fraction of three hundred and sixty words.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fifty paisas.

9

Omitted

 

10

Omitted

 

11

Appeal or revision application under the Baluchistan Tenancy Ordinance, 1978.

 

When the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute does not exceed twenty- five rupees.

 

When such amount or value exceeds twenty-five rupees.

 

 

 

 

Two rupees.

 

 

 

The fee leviable on a memorandum of appeal

12

Revision Application to a High court under section 115 of the code of civil procedure ,1908--

 

Where the application is for revision of an order and the amount or value of the subject-matter is less than two thousand rupees.

 

When the application is for the revision of an order and subject-matter is two thousand rupees or more.

 

Where the application is for the revision of an appellate decree

 

Seven rupees and fifty paisas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fifteen rupees.

 

 

 

The fee leviable on a memorandum of appeal.

 

BALUCHISTAN SCHEDULE II

 

SECOND SCHEDULE

[See section 3(d)]

FIXED RATES

S. No

Article

Proper Fee

1

2

3

1.

Application or petition -

 

       a)When presented to any officer of the Customs or Excise Department or to any Magistrate by any person having dealing with the Government and when the subject-mater of such application relates exclusively to those dealings;

 

     Or When presented to any officer of land-revenue by any person holding temporarily settled land under direct engagement with Government and when the subject-matter of the application or petition relates exclusively to such engagement;

 

     Or When presented to any Municipal Committee under any Act for the time being in force for the conservance or improvement of any place, if the application or petition relates solely to such conservancy or improvement;

      

      Or When presented to any civil court    other than a principal civil Court   of original jurisdiction or to any court of small Causes constituted under the provincial Small Cause Court ,Act 1887 or to a Collector or to a Collector or other officer of revenue in relation to any suit or case in which the amount or value of subject-matter is less than fifty rupees;

 

       Or When presented to any Civil, Criminal or Revenue court, or to any Board or Executive officer for the purpose of obtaining a copy or translation of any judgment, decree or order passed by such Court ,Board or officer, or of any other document or record in such Court or office;

 

 

 

One rupees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

One rupees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

One rupees.

 

 

 

 

 

One rupee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One rupee.

b)

When presented to a collector or other officer of revenue for assistance under West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967.

 

One rupees

 

C)

When containing a complaint or charge of any offence other than an offence for which police-officers may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989, arrest without warrant and presented to any criminal Court;

 

      Or When presented to a Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, or to  a Collector or any Revenue officer, having jurisdiction equal or subordinate to a Collector, or to any Magistrate in his executive capacity, and not otherwise provided for by this Ordinance;

 

      Or To deposit in Court revenue or rent;

 

       Or For determination by a court of the amount of compensation to be paid by a landlord to his tenant;

 

       or When presented to a Chief Controlling Revenue or executive Authority, or to a commissioner of Revenue or circuit, or to any Chief officer charged with executive administration of a Division and not otherwise provided by this Ordinance.

 

Two rupees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

d)

 

 

e)

When presented to a Court or authority other than a High Court, for transfer of cases.

 

     When presented to a High Court-

     i)Under the Companies Act, 1913 for winding up a company.

   

     ii) Under the said Act for taking some  other judicial action

   

   iii) For transfer of cases

   

   iv) In all other cases.

 

Five rupees.

 

 

 

Two hundred rupees.

 

 

Ten rupees.

 

 

Five rupees.

 

Five rupees.

Application to any civil Court that records may be called for from another Court-

     

When the Court grants the application and is of the opinion that the transmission of such records involves the use of the post.

 

 

 

Three rupees in addition to any fee levied on the application under serial number 1 of the Schedule.

 

3  

Application for leave to sue as a pauper

 

Two rupees.

4  

Application for leave to appeal as a pauper

 

Two rupees

5

  Plaint or memorandum of appeal in a suit to establish or disprove a right occupancy

 

Two rupees.

6

Bail bond or other instrument of obligation given in pursuance of an a order made by a Court or Magistrate under any section of the code of Criminal procedure ,1898 or the code of civil procedure, 1908 and not otherwise provided for by this Act. 

 

 

One rupee.

 

7

Undertaking under section 49 of the Divorce Act, 1969.

 

One rupee.

8

Mukhtamama or wokalatnama when presented for the conduct of  any one case-

    

a) to any Civil or Criminal court, other than a High court or to any Revenue Court, or to any Collector or Magistrate, or other executive officer, except such as are mentioned in clause (b) and (c) of this number;

 

      b)to commissioner of revenue Circuit or Customs or to any officer charged with the executive administration of a Division , not being the Chief Revenue or Executive Authority

       

     c) to a High Court, board of Revenue or other Chief Controlling Revenue of Executive Authority.

 

 

 

 

Two rupees.

 

 

 

 

 

Two rupees.

 

 

 

 

Three rupees.

9

Memorandum of appeal when the appeal is not from a decree or an order having he force of a decree and is presented--

    

      a)to any civil court other than a High Court, or to any Revenue Court or Executive officer other than the High court or chief Controlling Revenue or Excise Authority;

 

     b)to the Central Board of Revenue under Section 188 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 or section 35 of the central Excise and Salt Act, 1944;

 

      c)to High Court or other Chief Controlling Executive or Revenue Authority

 

 

 

 

Three rupees.

 

 

 

 

Twenty-five rupees.

 

 

 

 

Ten Rupees

10

      Caveat.

Ten rupees.

11 

Plaint or memorandum of appeal in each of following suits-

 

      i)to alter or set aside a summary decision or order of any civil Court, not being a High Court; or any Revenue Court;

 

      ii)   to alter or cancel any entry in a register of the names of proprietors of Revenue-paying estates;

       

      iii) to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed;

 

        iv) to set aside an award-

when the amount or value of the property involved does not exceed five hundred rupees.

When the amount or value of the property involved exceeds five hundred rupees.

 

      v) to set aside an adoption;

     

       vi) to set aside an alienation;

 

       vii) Where it is not possible to estimate the money value of the subject-matter in dispute and which is not otherwise provided for by this Act.

 

 

 

Ten rupees.

 

 

 

 

Fifteen rupees.

 

 

Thirty rupees.

 

 

Ten rupees.

 

 

 

 

 

Fifteen rupees.

 

Fifteen rupees.

 

Fifteen rupees.

 

12 

Application--

   

    a) for probate or letters or administration or for revocation thereof under the Succession Act, 1925;

 

     b)for a certificate under Part X of the Succession Act, 1925 or Sind Regulation VIII of 1827.

    c)For opinion or advice for discharge from a Trust or for appointment of new Trustees, under section 34.72.73 or 74 of the Trusts Act, 1882.

   

    d)for  the winding up of a company under section 166 of the companies Act, 1913;

 

    e)under rule 58 of Order XXI if the code of Civil procedure, 1908 regarding a claim to attached property—

 

When the amount or value of the Property exceeds five hundred rupees.

 

 

 

Ten rupees.

 

 

 

Ten rupees.

 

 

Ten rupees.

 

 

 

 

Ten rupees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ten Rupees

13 

Application under Chapter III of the Arbitration Act,

Twenty rupees.

14

.Agreement in writing stating a question for the opinion of the Court  under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

 

Twenty rupees.

15 

Every petition under the Divorce Act, 1869 except petitions under section 44 of the same Act, and every memorandum of appeal under section 55 of the same Act.

 

Thirty rupees.

16 

Plaint or memorandum of appeal under the parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.

 

Thirty rupees.

17

 For determination  of fair rent or eviction of a tenant under section 4 and 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance , 11959:-

     i)Where the property involved is exempted from property. Tax under the Sind  urban Immovable property Tax Act ,1958.

     ii) Where such property is assessed to Urban Immovable property Tax.

 

Five rupees.

 

 

 

Fifteen rupees.

18 

Election petition questioning the election of any person as a member of a local Council.

 

Hundred  rupees.

19

  Plaint or a Memorandum of appeal for recovery of compensation or damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.

Fifteen rupees.

 

RATES

 

FEDERAL COURT FEE RATES

 

Rs.

Rs.

Rs. Ps.

Rs.

Rs.

Rs. Ps.

5

0.37

90

95

7.13

5

10

0.75

95

100

7.50

10

15

1.13

100

110

8.25

15

20

1.50

110

120

9.00

20

25

1.87

120

130

9.75

25

30

2.25

130

140

10.50

30

30

2.62

140

150

11.25

35

40

3.00

150

160

12.00

40

45

3.37

160

170

12.75

45

50

3.75

170

180

13.50

50

55

4.13

180

190

14.25

55

60

4.50

190

200

15.00

60

65

4.87

200

210

15.75

65

70

5.25

210

220

16.50

70

75

5.62

220

230

17.25

75

80

6.00

230

240

18.00

80

85

6.37

240

250

18.75

85

90

6.75

250

260

19.50

260

270

20.25

480

490

36.75

270

280

21.00

490

500

37.50

280

290

21.75

500

510

38.25

290

300

22.50

510

520

39.00

300

310

23.25

520

530

39.75

310

320

24.00

530

540

40.50

320

330

24.75

540

550

41.25

330

340

25.50

550

560

42.00

340

350

26.25

560

570

42.75

350

360

27.00

570

580

43.50

360

370

27.75

580

590

44.25

370

380

28.50

590

600

45.00

380

390

29.25

600

610

45.75

390

400

30.00

610

620

46.50

400

410

30.75

620

630

47.25

410

420

31.50

630

640

48.00

420

430

32.25

640

650

48.75

430

440

33.00

650

660

49.50

440

450

33.75

660

670

50.25

450

460

34.50

670

680

51.00

460

470

35.25

680

690

51.75

470

480

36.00

690

700

52.50

700

710

53.25

920

930

69.75

710

720

54.00

930

940

70.50

720

730

54.75

940

950

71.25

730

740

55.50

950

960

72.00

740

750

56.25

960

970

72.75

750

760

57.00

970

980

73.50

760

770

57.75

980

990

74.25

770

780

58.50

990

1000

75.00

780

790

59.25

1000

1100

80.00

790

800

60.00

1100

1200

85.00

800

810

60.75

1200

1300

90.00

810

820

61.50

1300

1400

95.00

820

830

62.25

1400

1500

100.00

830

840

63.00

1500

1600

105.00

840

850

63.75

1600

1700

110.00

850

860

64.50

1700

1800

115.00

860

870

65.25

1800

1900

120.00

870

880

66.00

1900

2000

125.00

880

890

66.75

2000

2100

130.00

890

900

67.50

2100

2200

135.00

900

910

68.25

2200

2300

140.00

910

920

69.00

2300

2400

145.00

2400

2500

150.00

4600

4700

260.00

2500

2600

155.00

4700

4800

265.00

2600

2700

160.00

4800

4900

270.00

2700

2800

165.00

4900

5000

275.00

2800

2900

170.00

5000

5250

285.00

2900

3000

175.00

5250

5500

295.00

3000

3100

180.00

5500

5750

305.00

3100

3200

185.00

5750

6000

31500

3200

3300

190.00

6000

6250

325.00

3300

3400

195.00

6250

6500

335.00

3400

3500

200.00

6500

6750

345.00

3500

3600

205.00

6750

7000

355.00

3600

3700

210.00

7000

7250

365.00

3700

3800

215.00

7250

7500

375.00

3800

3900

220.00

7500

7750

385.00

3900

4000

250.00

7750

8000

395.00

4000

4100

230.00

8000

8250

405.00

4100

4200

235.00

8250

8500

415.00

4200

4300

240.00

8500

8750

425.00

4300

4400

245.00

8750

9000

435.00

4400

4500

250.00

9000

9250

445.00

4500

4600

255.00

9250

9500

455.00

9500

9750

465.00

20000

21000

795.00

9750

10000

475.00

21000

22000

815.00

10000

10500

490.00

22000

23000

835.00

10500

11000

505.00

23000

24000

855.00

11000

11500

520.00

24000

25000

875.00

11500

12000

535.00

25000

26000

895.00

12000

12500

550.00

26000

27000

915.00

12500

13000

565.00

27000

28000

935.00

13000

13500

580.00

28000

29000

955.00

13500

14000

595.00

29000

30000

975.00

14000

14500

610.00

30000

32000

995.00

14500

15000

625.00

32000

34000

1015.00

15000

15500

640.00

34000

36000

1035.00

15500

16000

655.00

36000

38000

1055.00

16000

16500

670.00

38000

40000

1075.00

16500

17000

685.00

40000

42000

1095.00

17000

17500

700.00

42000

44000

1115.00

17500

18000

715.00

44000

46000

1135.00

18000

18500

730.00

46000

48000

1155.00

18500

19000

745.00

48000

50000

1175.00

19000

19500

760.00

50000

55000

1200.00

19500

20000

775.00

55000

60000

1225.00

60000

65000

1250.000

170000

175000

1800.00

65000

70000

1275.00

175000

180000

1825.00

70000

75000

1300.00

180000

185000

1850.00

75000

80000

1325.00

185000

190000

1875.00

80000

85000

1350.00

190000

195000

1900.00

85000

90000

1375.00

195000

200000

1925.00

90000

95000

1400.00

200000

205000

1950.00

95000

100000

1425.00

205000

210000

1975.00

100000

105000

1450.00

210000

215000

2000.00

105000

110000

1475.00

215000

220000

2025.00

110000

115000

1500.00

220000

225000

2050.00

115000

120000

1525.00

225000

230000

2075.00

120000

125000

1550.00

230000

235000

2100.00

125000

130000

1575.00

235000

240000

2125.00

130000

135000

1600.00

240000

245000

2150.00

135000

140000

1625.00

245000

250000

2175.00

140000

145000

1650.00

250000

255000

2200.00

145000

150000

1675.00

255000

260000

2225.00

150000

155000

1700.00

260000

265000

2250.00

155000

160000

1725.00

265000

270000

2275.00

160000

165000

1750.00

270000

275000

2300.00

165000

170000

1775.00

275000

280000

2325.00

280000

285000

2350.00

385000

390000

2875.00

285000

290000

2375.00

390000

395000

2900.00

290000

295000

2400.00

395000

40000

2925.00

295000

300000

2425.00

40000

405000

2950.00

300000

305000

2450.00

405000

410000

2975.00

305000

310000

2475.00

410000

415000

3000.00

310000

315000

2500.00

 

 

 

315000

320000

2525.00

 

 

 

320000

325000

2550.00

 

 

 

325000

330000

2575.00

 

 

 

330000

335000

2600.00

 

 

 

335000

340000

2625.00

 

 

 

340000

345000

2650.00

 

 

 

345000

350000

2675.00

 

 

 

350000

355000

2700.00

 

 

 

355000

360000

2725.00

 

 

 

360000

365000

2750.00

 

 

 

365000

370000

2775.00

 

 

 

370000

375000

2800.00

 

 

 

375000

380000

2825.00

 

 

 

380000

385000

2850.00

 

 

 

 

PUNJAB COURT FEE RATES

   

Rs.

Rs.

Rs. Ps

Rs.

Rs.

Rs. Ps.

***

***

***

650

660

74.25

500

510

57.37

660

670

75.37

510

520

58.50

670

680

76.50

520

530

59.62

680

690

77.62

530

540

60.75

690

700

78.75

540

550

61.87

700

710

79.87

550

560

63.00

710

720

81.00

560

570

64.13

720

730

82.13

570

580

65.25

730

740

83.25

580

590

66.37

740

750

84.37

590

600

67.50

750

760

85.50

600

610

68.62

760

770

86.62

610

620

59.75

770

780

87.75

620

630

70.87

780

790

88.87

630

640

72.00

790

800

90.00

640

650

73.13

800

810

91.13

810

820

92.25

1200

1300

135.00

820

830

93.37

1300

1400

142.50

830

840

94.50

1400

1500

150.00

840

850

95.62

1500

1600

157.50

850

860

96.75

1600

1700

165.00

860

870

97.87

1700

1800

172.50

870

880

99.00

1800

1900

180.00

880

890

100.13

1900

2000

187.50

890

900

101.25

2000

2100

165.75

900

910

102.37

2100

2200

172.13

910

920

103.50

2200

2300

178.50

920

930

104.62

2300

2400

184.87

930

940

105.75

2400

2500

191.25

940

950

106.87

2500

2600

197.62

950

960

108.00

2600

2700

204.00

960

970

109.13

2700

2800

210.37

970

980

110.25

2800

2900

216.75

980

990

111.37

2900

3000

223.13

990

1000

112.50

3000

3100

229.50

1000

1100

120.00

3100

3200

235.87

1100

1200

127.50

3200

3300

242.25

3300

3400

248.62

6000

6250

414.37

3400

3500

255.00

6250

6500

427.13

3500

3600

261.37

6500

6750

439.87

3600

3700

267.75

6750

7000

452.62

3700

3800

274.13

7000

7250

465.37

3800

3900

280.50

7250

7500

478.13

3900

4000

286.87

7500

7750

490.87

4000

4100

293.25

7750

8000

503.62

4100

4200

299.62

8000

8250

516.37

4200

4300

306.00

8250

8500

529.13

4300

4400

312.37

8500

8750

541.87

4400

4500

381.75

8750

9000

554.63

4500

4600

325.13

9000

9250

576.37

4600

4700

331.50

9250

9500

580.13

4700

4800

337.87

9500

9750

592.87

4800

4900

344.25

9750

10000

605.62

4900

5000

350.62

10000

10500

624.75

5000

5250

363.37

10500

11000

643.87

5250

5500

376.13

11000

11500

663.00

5500

5750

388.87

11500

12000

682.13

5750

6000

401.62

12000

12500

701.25

12500

13000

720.37

25000

26000

1543.87

13000

13500

739.50

26000

27000

1578.37

13500

14000

758.62

27000

28000

1562.87

14000

14500

777.75

28000

29000

1647.37

14500

15000

796.87

29000

30000

1681.87

15000

15500

1104.00

30000

32000

1716.37

15500

16000

1129.87

32000

34000

1750.87

16000

16500

1155.75

34000

36000

1785.37

16500

17000

1181.62

36000

38000

1819.87

17000

17500

1207.50

38000

40000

1854.37

17500

18000

1233.37

40000

42000

1888.87

18000

18500

1259.25

42000

44000

1923.37

18500

19000

1285.13

44000

46000

1957.87

19000

19500

1211.00

46000

48000

1992.37

19500

20000

1336.87

48000

50000

2026.37

20000

21000

1371.37

50000

55000

2061.37

21000

22000

1405.87

55000

60000

2095.87

22000

23000

1440.37

60000

65000

2120.37

23000

24000

1474.87

65000

70000

2154.87

24000

25000

1509.37

70000

75000

2189.37

25000

26000

1543.87

75000

80000

2233.87

80000

85000

2668.37

190000

195000

3027.37

85000

90000

2302.87

195000

20000

3061.87

90000

95000

2337.37

20000

205000

3096.37

95000

100000

2371.87

205000

210000

3130.87

100000

105000

2406.37

210000

215000

3165.37

105000

110000

2440.87

215000

220000

3199.87

110000

115000

2475.37

220000

225000

3134.37

115000

120000

2509.87

225000

230000

3161.87

120000

125000

2544.37

230000

235000

3203.87

125000

130000

2578.87

235000

240000

3337.87

130000

135000

2613.37

240000

245000

3372.37

135000

140000

2647.87

245000

250000

3406.87

140000

145000

2682.37

250000

255000

3441.37

145000

150000

2716.87

255000

260000

3475.87

150000

155000

2751.37

260000

265000

3510.37

155000

160000

2785.87

265000

270000

3544.87

160000

165000

2820.37

270000

275000

3579.37

165000

170000

2854.87

275000

280000

3613.87

170000

175000

2889.37

280000

285000

3648.37

175000

180000

2923.37

285000

290000

3628.87

180000

185000

2958.37

290000

295000

3717.37

185000

190000

2992.87

295000

300000

3751.87

300000

305000

3786.37

350000

355000

4031.37

305000

310000

3820.87

355000

360000

4065.87

310000

315000

3855.37

360000

365000

4100.37

315000

320000

3889.87

365000

370000

4134.87

320000

325000

3824.37

370000

375000

4169.37

325000

330000

3858.87

375000

380000

4203.87

330000

335000

3893.37

380000

385000

4238.37

335000

340000

3927.87

385000

390000

4272.87

340000

345000

3962.37

390000

395000

4307.37

345000

350000

3996.87

395000

400000

4341.87

 

And when the amount or value of the subject matter exceeds Rs. 4,00,000 the proper fee leviable shall be Rs. 4341.87 plus Rs. 34.50 for each five thousand rupees or part thereof in excess of Rs. 4,00,000.

Punjab Act, VII of 1922 (23-11-1922)

 

The proper fees for suits below RS. 500 (subject-matter) are the same as those given in the table in the Court-fees Act. VII of 1870. the same being restored by Punjab Act. VI of 1926). Hence that much portion of the table is omitted here.

 

SIND COURT FEE RATES

   

Rs.

Rs.

Rs. Ps

Rs.

Rs.

Rs. Ps.

5

0.37

90

95

7.13

5

10

0.75

95

100

7.50

10

15

1.13

100

110

8.25

15

20

1.50

110

120

9.00

20

25

1.87

120

130

9.75

25

30

2.25

130

140

10.50

30

30

2.62

140

150

11.25

35

40

3.00

150

160

12.00

40

45

3.37

160

170

12.75

45

50

3.75

170

180

13.50

50

55

4.13

180

190

14.25

55

60

4.50

190

200

15.00

60

65

4.87

200

210

15.75

65

70

5.25

210

220

16.50

70

75

5.62

220

230

17.25

75

80

6.00

230

240

18.00

80

85

6.37

240

250

18.75

85

90

6.75

250

260

19.50

260

270

20.25

480

490

36.75

270

280

21.00

490

500

37.50

280

290

21.75

500

510

38.25

290

300

22.50

510

520

39.00

300

310

23.25

520

530

39.75

310

320

24.00

530

540

40.50

320

330

24.75

540

550

41.25

330

340

25.50

550

560

42.00

340

350

26.25

560

570

42.75

350

360

27.00

570

580

43.50

360

370

27.75

580

590

44.25

370

380

28.50

590

600

45.00

380

390

29.25

600

610

45.75

390

400

30.00

610

620

46.50

400

410

30.75

620

630

47.25

410

420

31.50

630

640

48.00

420

430

32.25

640

650

48.75

430

440

33.00

650

660

49.50

440

450

33.75

660

670

50.25

450

460

34.50

670

680

51.00

460

470

35.25

680

690

51.75

470

480

36.00

690

700

52.50

700

710

53.25

920

930

69.75

710

720

54.00

930

940

70.50

720

730

54.75

940

950

71.25

730

740

55.50

950

960

72.00

740

750

56.25

960

970

72.75

750

760

57.00

970

980

73.50

760

770

57.75

980

990

74.25

770

780

58.50

990

1000

75.00

780

790

59.25

1000

1100

80.00

790

800

60.00

1100

1200

85.00

800

810

60.75

1200

1300

90.00

810

820

61.50

1300

1400

95.00

820

830

62.25

1400

1500

100.00

830

840

63.00

1500

1600

105.00

840

850

63.75

1600

1700

110.00

850

860

64.50

1700

1800

115.00

860

870

65.25

1800

1900

120.00

870

880

66.00

1900

2000

125.00

880

890

66.75

2000

2100

110.50

890

900

67.50

2100

2200

114.75

900

910

68.25

2200

2300

119.00

910

920

69.00

2300

2400

123.25

2400

2500

127.50

4600

4700

221.00

2500

2600

131.75

4700

4800

225.25

2600

2700

1136.00

4800

4900

229.50

2700

2800

140.25

4900

5000

233.75

2800

2900

144.50

5000

5250

246.50

2900

3000

148.75

5250

5500

259.25

3000

3100

153.00

5500

5750

272.00

3100

3200

157.25

5750

6000

284.75

3200

3300

161.50

6000

6250

310.25

3300

3400

165.75

6250

6500

310.25

3400

3500

170.00

6500

6750

323.00

3500

3600

174.25

6750

7000

335.75

3600

3700

178.50

7000

7250

348.50

3700

3800

182.75

7250

7500

361.25

3800

3900

187.00

7500

7750

374.00

3900

4000

191.25

7750

8000

386.75

4000

4100

195.50

8000

8250

399.50

4100

4200

199.75

8250

8500

412.25

4200

4300

204.00

8500

8750

425.00

4300

4400

208.25

8750

9000

437.75

4400

4500

212.50

9000

9250

450.50

4500

4600

216.75

9250

9500

463.25

9500

9750

476.00

20000

21000

1213.25

9750

10000

507.87

21000

22000

1247.75

10000

10500

507.87

22000

23000

1282.25

10500

11000

527.00

23000

24000

1316.75

11000

11500

546.13

24000

25000

1351.25

11500

12000

556.25

25000

26000

1385.75

12000

12500

584.37

26000

27000

1420.75

12500

13000

603.50

27000

28000

1454.75

13000

13500

622.62

28000

29000

1489.25

13500

14000

641.75

29000

30000

1523.75

14000

14500

660.87

30000

32000

1558.25

14500

15000

680.00

32000

34000

1592.75

15000

15500

945.87

34000

36000

1627.25

15500

16000

971.75

36000

38000

1661.75

16000

16500

997.62

38000

40000

1696.25

16500

17000

1023.50

40000

42000

1730.75

17000

17500

1049.37

42000

44000

1765.25

17500

18000

1075.25

44000

46000

1799.75

18000

18500

1101.13

46000

48000

1834.25

18500

19000

1127.00

48000

50000

1868.75

19000

19500

1152.87

 

 

 

19500

20000

1178.75

 

 

 

And the fee increases at the rate of thirty-four rupees fifty paisa for every five thousand rupees, or part thereof, upto a maximum of ten Thousand rupees, for example.1

Rs.

Rs. Ps

Rs.

Rs.

100000

2213.75

900000

7733.75

200000

2903.75

1000000

8432.75

300000

3593.75

1100000

9113.75

400000

4283.75

1200000

9803.75

500000

4973.75

1300000

10493.75

600000

5663.75

1400000

11183.75

700000

6353.75

1500000

11873.75

800000

7043.75

 

 

 

1.             Bombay Finance (Sind Amendment ) Act, 1 of 1938, S.2.

 

The Rules framed under section 20 of the court-fees Act

 

PUNJAB RULES UNDER SECTION 20

 

A.—REMARKS AND DIRECTIONS.

 

The following rules regarding process-fees have been made by the High court with the sanction of Government and are re-published for the guidance of the courts of the Punjab in super session of all previous rules on the subject:----

 

1.         The rules in Part B are framed under section 20 of the court-fees Act.

 

2.         Attention is invited to section 21 of the Court-fee Act, which requires that a table of fees chargeable on processes in each Court should be hung up in some conspicuous place, and to the fact that under rules 4 and additional fee is leviable on multiple processes.

 

3.         The court-fees Act, section 20, clause (ii), restricts the levy of a fee on criminal processes to non-cognizable cases. The levy of a fee in such cases is authorised by rule 5 whether the process is served through the police or the process-serving establishment, and the fee for such processes has been fixed at a uniform rate of  2[eight] annas.

 

4.         3[Courts are reminded that, under section 546-A of the code of criminal procedure, in cases of conviction of an accused to the offence of wrongful confinement, wrongful restraint, or of any non-cognizable offence, the Court may by its order direct that the accused should pay to be complainant any sum that he may have expended in issue of processes; and such sum may be recovered in the manner provided for recovery of fines.

 

5.         Notwithstanding the separation of the Revenue from the Civil Courts, the control over income derived from process-fees in all Revenue courts and Revenue officers, and the expenditure on establishment etc. from this source, is still at the desire of the Board of Revenue, retained by the High Court, to which all references on the subject should be made as heretofore. It will be necessary for the Commissioners and District Courts to maintain the registers and accounts prescribed by these Rules and orders, and to submit the annual returns in the prescribed form.

For the purposes of the Rules under Part, B Revenue Court 4[ and Revenue Officers] have been divided into three grades as follows:-

 

Court                                                  Grade

Board of Revenue                               First Grade

Commissioners                                   Second Grade

 

Legal Amendments

1.       Chapter 5-A Rules and Orders of the lahore High Court, Vol. IV.

2.       Subs. for “ four by S.C. No 139- XIX –E-2 dated 14th March 1936.

3.       Subs. by C.S. No. 124-XiX –E-2 dated 6th January 1936.

4.       Ins. By S.C. 67/XIX- E-2 dated 7th August 1924.

 

Punjab Court Fees’ (Abolition) Ordinance, 1983

 

ORDINANCE X OF 1983

 

(Gazette of Punjab, Extraordinary, dated 21st June 1983)

 

An Ordinance to provide for the abolition of Court-fee in respect of certain cases

 

No. Legis. 3(10)/83. – The following Ordinance by the Governor of the Punjab is hereby published for general information: --

 

Preamble. – Whereas it is expedient to provide for the abolition of court-fee in respect of certain cases.

 

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the Proclamation of fifth day of July, 1977 read with the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977 (C.M.L.A. Order No.1 of 1977) and the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 (C.M.L.A. Order No.1 of 1981), the Governor of the Punjab is pleased to make and promulgate the following Ordinance: --

 

1.         Short title and commencement. –

(1)        This Ordinance may be called the Punjab Court Fees (Abolition) Ordinance, 1983.

(2)        It shall come into force at once and shall be deemed to have taken effect on and from the first of August, 1978.

 

2.  Abolition of Court Fee in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Court Fees Act, 1870 (VII of 1870) or any other law for the time being in force or in any Rule, Notification or Order, no court-fee shall be chargeable by any Court or payable n respect of --

a)         Any criminal case; and

b)         Any case of civil nature the value of the subject-matter whereof or the relief claimed wherein does not exceed twenty-five thousand Rupees.

Explanation. The aforesaid abolition of court-fee shall be applicable at all stages of the case and in respect of all Courts including revenue Courts.

 

Court Fees (Sind Amendment) Ordinance, 1978

 

(ORDINANCE XII OF 1978)

 

An Ordinance to amend the

Court Fees Act, 1870, in its application to the Province of Sind

 

(Gazette of Sind, extraordinary, Part I, 2nd August, 1978)

 

No. S. Legis 1 (13)/78. The following Ordinance by the Governor of Sind is hereby published for general information: -

           

Preamble.       Whereas it is expedient to amend the Court Fees Act, 1870, in its application to the Province of Sind in the manner hereinafter appearing:

           

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the Proclamation of the fifth day of July, 1977, read with the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977, the Governor of Sind is pleased to make and promulgate the following Ordinance: ---

 

1.                 Short title and commencement.

 

(1)        This Ordinance may be called the Court Fees (Sind Amendment) Ordinance, 1978.

 

(2)        It shall come into force at once and be deemed to have taken effect on and from the 1st August, 1978.

 

2.         Abolition of court-fees in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Court Fees Act, 1870 (Act VII of 1870), no court-fee shall be payable in a criminal case and, a case of civil nature the value of which does not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees.

 

North-West Frontier Province Court-Fees (Abolition) Ordinance, 1978

 

(ORDINANCE XIV OF 1978)

 

An Ordinance to provide for the abolition of court-fee in respect of certain cases.

 

(Gazette of N.-W.F.P, Extraordinary, 26th August, 1978)

 

No. Legis. 1(9)/ 78.--- The following Ordinance by the Governor of the North-West Frontier Province is hereby published for general in formation:---

 

Preamble. Whereas it is expedient to provide for the abolition of court-fee in respect of certain cases;

 

AND whereas the Governor of the North-West Frontier province is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary to take immediate action;

 

NOW, therefore, in pursuance of the proclamation of the fifth day of July, 1977, read with the laws (continuance in Force) Order, 1977 (CMLA Order No. 1 of 1977) and in exercise of all powers enabling him in that behalf, the Governor of the north –West Frontier province is pleased to make and promulgate the following Ordinance.

 

1.         Short title, extent and commencement.---

 

1)         This Ordinance may be called the North- West Frontier province court-fees (Abolition) Ordinance, 1978.

 

2)         It extends to the whole of the North-west Frontier province.

 

3)         It shall come into force at once, and be deemed to have taken effect on and from 1st. August 1978.

 

2. Abolition of court-fee in certain cases. Notwithstanding any thing contained in the court Fees Act, 1870(VII of 1870) or any other law for the time being in force, or any rules or orders, no court-fee shall be payable in, or chargeable by, any Court in respect of ---

a) any criminal case; and

b) any case of civil nature the value of the subject-matter whereof or relief claimed therein, does not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees.

3.         Refund of court-fee. If any court-fee has been paid after 31st July, 1978, by any person in respect of any case specified in section 2, the same shall, on application by any such person to the Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned by refunded to him.

Go to Index | LL. B. – I | LL. B. – II | LL. B. – III | LL. B. Directory | Home