Muhammad Azeem vs Noor Muhammad S — 2024 MLD 1550 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Muhammad Azeem VS Noor Muhammad S.7(v) [as substituted by Punjab Finance Act, 1973]---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 8---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ,O. VII, R. 11 (c)---Suit for possession---Court fee, determination of---Suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed and the Appellate Court rejected his appeal due to non-deposit of court fee---Validity---Determination of court fee to be affixed in suit for possession is governed by S.7 of Court Fees Act, 1870, and according to amendment for the Province of the Punjab the provision of S.7 (v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, stands substituted by Punjab Finance Act, 1973---Petitioner, being plaintiff was throughout aware of the quantum of court fee to be affixed for his suit---It was also evident from relevant paragraph of the plaint where the petitioner/plaintiff himself had valued his suit at Rs.200,000/- and affixed court fee in the amount of Rs.15,000/----Subsequently, in appeal proceedings the petitioner, being appellant, through relevant paragraph (No. 10) of memorandum of appeal acknowledged his obligation to affix court fee for Rs.15,000/- and sought extension of time for making good the deficiency of court fee due to reason duly elaborated in the said paragraph---In terms of law, the said paragraph (No. 10) would be deemed to be an application for extension in time for submission of court fee and the order sheet in the case reflecte that the Appellate Court impliedly permitted the petitioner/appellant by not insisting till passing of the impugned judgment and decree to affix the court fee---Petitioner from institution of his appeal till passing of the impugned judgment and decree by the Appellate Court had various opportunities to make good the deficiency of court fee: firstly, at the time of filing of appeal, the petitioner himself conceded to the fact of requirement of fixation of requisite court fee and sought extension of time with respect to making good the deficiency thereof; secondly, an opportunity was granted to the petitioner when the respondents filed application for rejection of memorandum of appeal due to deficiency of Court Fee and instead of affixing the court fee he took a new stance, that too, contrary to his earlier legal position reflected in relevant paragraph of his appeal, and asserted that no Court Fee was liable to be affixed on the memorandum of appeal---Therefore, the petitioner has no legal stand to persuade the High Court that he is not granted ample opportunity to make good the deficiency of court fee---Case of the petitioner clearly fell under the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 (c) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as throughout he neglected or avoided the payment of court fee despite acknowledging its payability and quantum---No material illegality or infirmity had been noticed in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court below---Civil Revision, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1550 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Muhammad Azeem VS Noor Muhammad S.7(v)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11 (c)---Court fee, affixation of---Purpose---Court fee is not meant to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality against his opponent, but to secure revenue for the State---Policy of law, in matters relating to payments required to be made by a litigant by way of fee, fine or other deposits, appears to point towards flexibility rather than rigidity---Substance rather than form is the underlying principle---This is an area of the law where the litigant is, in most instances, given leeway and shown flexibility to enable him to meet technical requirements, which has inadvertently, in ignorance or because of misconception or misrepresentation of the relevant provision of law, remained unattended---But it is equally important that if a litigant demonstrates a continuous default towards payment of court fee or exhibits a delinquent conduct continuously in making good the deficiency thereof then obviously neither law nor equity or justice can grant him such premium and consequence of the provision of O. VII, R. 11(c), C.P.C. will come into play.

Muhammad Azeem vs Noor Muhammad S — 2024 MLD 1550 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD