| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLD 3142 = 2026 LHC 4551 |
Diary No. 64893/26 dated 12.05.2026
Presented By: (Muzamil Akhtar Shabir) Judge
06.07.2026 Mr. Muhammad Saleem A Chaudhry, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Qamar Zaman Qureshi, Additional Advocate General, Punjab and Ch. Muhammad Naseer Advocate.
Shabbira Bebe
VS
. Shabbir Ahmad, etc.
Law: Court Fee Act, 1870
Section: 3, 4, 14, 15
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section: 1(3), 122, 127
Tagline
Review Petition – Court Fee and Security Deposit – Payment of Half Court Fee and Rs. 5,000 Security for Review Petition Are Separate Legal Requirements and Do Not Amount to Double Jeopardy.
Summary
The petitioner challenged an office objection requiring her to (i) pay half of the prescribed court fee and (ii) deposit Rs. 5,000 as security while filing a review petition. She argued that both requirements amounted to charging the same fee twice (double jeopardy).
The Court rejected this contention. It held that court fee and security deposit serve entirely different legal purposes. Court fee is a statutory levy under the Court Fees Act, 1870 for generating State revenue, whereas the security deposit under Order XLVII Rule 1(3) CPC is intended to discourage frivolous review petitions and compensate the successful opposite party if the review fails after contest.