Case Details

Citation(s)
1998 SLG 1488 1998 SLD 1488 1998 CLC 1851
Quetta High Court
Regular First Appeal No.37 of 1997, decision dated: 4-05-1998, hearing DATE : 16-04-1998
AMANULLAH KHAN YASINZAI, J
Tariq Mehmood for Appellant. Hashim Kakar for
Respondents. S.A.M. Quadri. Amicus curiae

Khalifa ABDUL GHANI

VS

AMIR HAMZA and 7 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Court Fees Act (VII of 1870)-------S.7(v)(a)---Determination of court-fee by Court---Contention that court-fee: should have been determined by the Trial Court before dismissing the suit had no force---Court-fee 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. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VII, R.11(c), Ss.149 & 96---Rejection of plaint/appeal---Deficiency of court-fee---Obligatory to grant time for supply of deficiency in court-fee---Held, Court shall, as an obligation, direct the party concerned to supply the deficiency of court-fees within the time to be specified and on its failure to do so, of course, subject to the other provisions of the law in this behalf, it shall have to reject the plaint or appeal, as the case may be. Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakkoor and another PLD 1984 SC 289 rel. JUDGMENT This appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 12-6-1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Pishin whereby the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that ad valorem court-fee has not been affixed on the plaint. 2. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against the respondents in respect of property bearing Khewat No.2, Khatooni No.2 situated in Mahal Karez Noor Khan, Mauza Nagangai, Tappa Ziarat, Thesil Barshoar, District Pishin measuring 107 rods, 10 poles (hereinafter referred to as the property in dispute), in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pishin. The respondents filed their written statement and contested the suit. Amongst other grounds it was objected that the suit is liable to be dismissed for deficiency of court-fees. It was further objected that the property in dispute was sold at Rs.2,50,000 but the plaintiff had not affixed the required court-fees. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Pishin…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492