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 Petition No. 798 of 1982, decided on 16th October, 1982.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 18th September, 1982 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No. 119/82/BWP)
‑‑Art. 185 (3) and Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 17, Sched. I Art. I as substituted by Punjab Finance Act, 1973‑‑Leave to appeal Contention that S. 17 of Court Fees Act is subject to provisions of Art. 1 of Sched I of Act‑Contention raised requires further consideration‑Leave to appeal granted.
Sheikh Inayat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 16th October, 1982.
The contention raised is that section 17 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is subject to the provisions of the proviso to Article 1 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act, as substituted by section 8 of the Punjab Finance Act, 1973, and, therefore, the demand of the additional court‑fee of Rs. 15,000 was unwarranted inasmuch as the court‑fee of Rs. 15,000 had already been paid on the suit.
The contention raised requires further consideration. Leave is, accor dingly, granted.
Security in the sum of Rs. 2,000 within one month.
The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any.
The payment of additional court‑fee stayed meanwhile.
M. Y. H. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer