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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Har Dayal Shah
etc. v. The Secretary of State for
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Ahmad Khan v.
The Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court of
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
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.
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
Although in the
Government of India Act, Judicial Commissioner's Court in
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Grant
of time to make up deficiency-Combined effect of O. VII, r. 11 and S.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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-ŕ-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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
A I R 1937
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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
Kalu Ram v.
Hanwant Ram A I R 1934 Lah. 488 and
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.
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.
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.
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.
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[
In Section
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.
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.
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
(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
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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 &
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.
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.
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,
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 .
PLD 1965
PLD 1969 Dacca 357; NLR
1984 Civil 59; PLD
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.
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.
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.
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(
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1987 S C M R
1161; AIR 1927
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Refund of Court fees: S.C.of
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1980 CLC 545; P
L D 1970 Lah. 560; P L D 1962 Pesh. 156;
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
(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.
S. 35 When read with
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.
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
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
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
(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 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. |
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 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
(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 |
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
(ii) Where such property is assessed to Urban Immovable property Tax. |
Five
rupees Fifteen
rupees |
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
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
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 |
Fifteen rupees
|
See Section 3 (c )
|
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 |
(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
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 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
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
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. |
|
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 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 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. |
[See section 3(d)]
|
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
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 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. |
|
2 |
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
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 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 |
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
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.
The Rules framed under section 20 of the court-fees Act
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
1. Chapter 5-A Rules and
Orders of the
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.
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
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
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 (
(ORDINANCE XII OF 1978)
An Ordinance to amend the
Court Fees Act,
(Gazette of Sind, extraordinary, Part I, 2nd August, 1978)
No.
Preamble.
Whereas it is expedient to amend the Court Fees Act,
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
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