PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD. THROUGH CHAIRMAN versus RAI MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN KHARAL
Section 42 of the Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Section 7 and the first Schedule Plaintiff sued for the declaration on the basis that the disputed telephone connection was not established or used at his request, Because he was not responsible for paying that amount. For the use of the same department, Rs. An application to compile additional evidence, as well as an additional issue, which was dismissed by the appellate court for no immediate reason. The department further requested that the plaintiff did not verify the ad hoc court fee application for additional evidence before the appellate court, the said application could not mention which part of the document was in the record partially kept on record. Wanted, the documents presented in the denial of the claim of the claimant were not relied upon, the appellate court rightly dismissed the application for additional evidence in these circumstances, Rs 115,192 in the suit filed by the plaintiff. Was to allocate money. The Adjournment Court fee was payable under which both the courts correctly approved the order against the Department on the basis of the available records; the High Court directed the petitioner to obtain a certified copy of the application. Pay the advertising fee within one month from the date. If the order and the plaintiff fails to pay the court fees, the suit will be considered with further instruction to allow the plaintiff to confirm the order.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
