Section 6 (iii) and 13 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O VII, R 11 Court Fees Act (VII 1870), Section 28, because the plaintiff had a common jurisdiction because of his affidavit. The case was filed for pre-occupation by the case. The irrigation and passage of the source showed a tremendous amount of ambition and prayer, and prayed that a verdict be made in his favor. Defendant contends that the plaintiff did not pay the required court fee due to the trial court's dismissal and, under VII, R 11, CPC, on the basis that the plaintiff's net profit 15 times. According to the appellate court, it was unable to comply with the court order associated with the fee, on appeal, also dismissed the case, there were two statements of net profit, a net profit of Rs. Kharif, Rabi, 2001 to 2002, occurred in 2002 and the second net profit was Rs. 9695 85, which resulted in Kharif, net profit from 1998 to Kharif, 2002, during the last five years. The determination of the value of the suit for unrelated jurisdictional fees and jurisdictional purposes was ambiguous and did not mention the reduction of court fees in the specific terms that were required to be construed and the guidance was not correct. Whether or not the claimant needs to fix the price. Specifying the reduction of court fees, the specific amount indicates that the plaint could not be rejected under OVII, R 11 (b) or (c), in which case the High Court remanded the trial court. But with the direction that it should be determined in accordance with the law for judicial fees and jurisdictional purposes, and if it turns out that someone in the court fees
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
