| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1997 SLD 746 = 1997 CLC 1210 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 1003 of 1979 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 4375 of 1996, decided on 22nd September, 1996.
Presented By: Before Rasheed Ahmed Razvi, J
Farogh Nasim for Plaintiffs. Agha Faqir Muhammad for Defendant (absent).
Suit No. 1003 of 1979 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 4375 of 1996, decided on 22nd September, 1996.
Presented By: Before Rasheed Ahmed Razvi, J
Farogh Nasim for Plaintiffs. Agha Faqir Muhammad for Defendant (absent).
Messrs AL-AHRAM BUILDERS LIMITED---Plaintiff
VERSUS
PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS' HOUSING AUTHORITY---Defendant
Law: Court Fee Act, 1870
Section: 7(i)
Court Fees Act (VII of 1870)--- ----S. 7(i)---Prayer for alternate relief in plaint having been included, plaintiff's application for permission to pay further court-fee on ground that in specified para. of his plaint he had prayed for alternate relief i.e. damages against defendants and that present market value of property in question, had enhanced---Entitlement---Plaintiff had admittedly prayed for alternate decree for specified amount as damages but despite such fact, at admission stage, no such objection was raised by office of Court which had resulted in filing of application---Plaintiff's application was granted and he was allowed to pay additional court-fee on account of his alternate prayer---Plaintiff was allowed to amend title as well as relevant para. of plaint. Province of West Pakistan v. Abdul Ghani Ghumman 1968 SCMR 321 and Haji Gul and another v. Mst. Aisha PLD 1973 Kar. 653 ref. Farogh Nasim for Plaintiffs. Agha Faqir Muhammad for Defendant (absent). ORDER On 1-9-1996 Mr. Agha Faqir Muhammad had waived notice of this application to whom copies were also supplied but despite that he has failed to file any counter-affidavit till this date. Through this application, the plaintiff has prayed that he may be allowed to pay further court-fee on the ground, inter alia, that in para. 35(b) of his plaint he has prayed for an alternate relief i. e. damages for rupees 90,00,000 (rupees ninety lacs) against the defendants and, secondly, that the…