Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Revision No. 34 of 1957; decided on 14th February 1958, from the order of Sub‑Judge, Kotli, dated the 21st May 1957.
, Sch. 1, Art. 13‑Not applicable in Azad Jammu and Kashmir‑Revision petitions governed by Sch. II Art. 1, cl. (d).
The petitioner affixed a Court‑fee of Rs. 2 on his petition of revision. A preliminary objection was raised that ad valorem Court‑fee was payable.
Held, that Article 13 of Schedule I of Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), was applicable only if revision petition was filed under section 44 of the Punjab Courts Act (VI of 1918).
The petition affixed with a Court fee of Rs. 2 was correctly stamped under Article I, clause (d) of Schedule II of Court Fees Act.
Faqir v. Kh. Habibullah Revision Petition No. 5 of 1953 dissented from.
Mehraj Din v. Rafia Begum P L D 1952 Lah. 219 ref.
Muhammad Yahya Cheema for Petitioner.
Chaudry Abdul Ghafoor for Respondent.
--‑ This is a revision petition against the order of Sub‑Judge, Kotli, dated the 21st May 1957, whereby the suit of the plaintiff petitioner for a sum of Rs. 400 against the defendant‑respondent was dismissed with posts.
The petitioner has affixed a Court‑fee of Rs. 2 on the revision petition. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the ad valorem Court‑fee should be charged from the petitioner on a sum of Rs. 400 for which he had brought the suit. In support of his contention, he has relied on the authority of this Court entitled Faqir v. Khawaja Habibullah (l), decided by Mr. Justice Chaudry Niaz Ahmad on 9th December 1953, wherein it was held that the Court‑fee payable on a revision petition in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court was governed by Article 13 of Schedule I of the Court‑fees Act and that if the amount of the subject‑matter exceeded Rs. 25, ad valorem Court‑fee was payable. It is contended that this Single Bench Ruling does not lay down correct law, as Article 13 Schedule I of the Court‑fees Act was not applicable to Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
On the other hand, it has been pointed out that section 50 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Courts and Laws Code Act makes the Indian Court‑fees Act applicable to Azad Jammu and Kashmir which lays down a general provision as embodied in Schedule II, Article 1, clause (d) and a specific provision as embodied in Schedule I Article 13 and that since Schedule I Article 131 specifically applies to Punjab, it would not be applicable to Azad Jammu and Kashmir ; that the general provision contained in Schedule II, ,Article I, clause (d) would be applicable and that, therefore, revision petitions to this Court would be stampable with a Court‑fees stamp of Rs. 2. It was, further, pointed out that Schedule I, Article 13 would be only attracted if a revision petition was filed under section 44 of the Punjab Courts Act and as there was no mention of section 44 of the Punjab Courts Act in this revision petition, Article 13 of Schedule I could not be made applicable. Reliance was placed in this connection on Mehraj Din v. Rafia Begum (2). We agree with this exposition of Law. Schedule 1, Article 13 is no doubt specifically applicable to Punjab and cannot be applied to Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, the Single Bench ruling of this Court relied upon by the counsel for the respondent does not lay down correct Law, Besides, this revision petition cannot be treated as one under section 44 of the Punjab Courts Act. In the circumstances, the general provision, as laid down in Schedule 11, Article 1, clause (d)' of the Court‑fees Act, which runs as under :‑
Schedule II Fixed Fees
Number Proper‑fee
I. (a) .
Application (b) ..
or petition (c) .
(d) When presented to a High Court. Two rupees.
would govern the revision petitions filed in this High Court. The
(1) Revision Petition No. 5 of 1953
(2) P L D 1952 Lah, 219 revision petition in this case, which has been stamped with a Court‑fee stamp of Rs. 2 has, therefore, been correctly stamped.
As the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondent has been disposed of, the revision petition will be heard on merits on the 30th April 1958.
S. K./A. H. Case remitted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer