Find a Lawyer

Suit No.229 of 1982, heard on 11th March,1984.

‑‑‑S.17 [as amended by Court Fees (Sind Amendment) Ordinance (VII of 1977)]‑‑Suit filed by plaintiffs embracing several distinct subjects‑ Plaintiffs making separate claims against defendants‑‑Relief claimed by different plaintiffs based upon distinct subjects, held, had to be valued separately and court‑fee paid on each relief separately‑‑Maximum court‑fee on each distinct subject mentioned in plaints, held further, would not be more than Rs.15,000‑‑ Contention that plaintiffs were entitled to pay maximum court‑fee of Rs.15,000 on aggregate value on all claims made separately on distinct subjects by different plaintiffs having different causes of action, held, was not tenable.

A I R 1930 Mad.833; A I R 1922 Pat.359; A I R 1953 Hyd. 156 and Haru Bapari and others v. Roy Kahitish and others A I R 1935 Cal.573 ref.

G.M.Qureshi for Plaintiffs,

Khawaja Mansoor and Nizam Ahmad for Defendants.

The above suit was brought by NINE plaintiffs. The various amounts claimed by the different plaintiffs are shown in paras 14 to 18 reproduced herein below:‑‑

"14. That in the course of the illegal and malicious trespass the agents of the defendants have caused wilful damage to property (including inherited antiques of considerable value) belonging to plaintiff No‑1, and thus plaintiff No.1 is entitled to damages in the amount of Rs.300,000 (Rupees three hundred thousand) jointly and severally from the defendants who are liable to pay her the said amount.

15. That plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 7 claim general damages for illegal an malicious trespass, physical discomfort, mental suffering, and shock caused by the attempt to run down defendant No.4, and damage to the reputation of the family, in the amount of Rs.2,500,000 (Rupees two million five hundred thousand) jointly and severally against the defendants.

16. That plaintiffs Nos. 8 and 9 each claim damages in the amount of Rs.200,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand) for wrongful arrest, physical discomfort, mental suffering, and humiliation.

17. That plaintiff No.3 claims damages in the amount of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand) for expenses and for loss of business incurred by his early return from Dubai which caused him to abandon his commitments there.

18. That plaintiffs Nos. 3, 4 and 6 claim damages in the amount of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand) for loss of business and suspended work during the period 12th December,1981 to 19th December,1981 caused by their absence from their offices due to the above‑mentioned incident. They also claim damages in the amount of Rs.36,720 (Rupees thirty six thousand seven hundred and twenty) for wages and subsistence allowances paid to 34 persons arrested vide report under sections 151 and 107/117, Cr.P.C., dated 12th December,1981 by Civil Lines Police Station, Karachi, and for wages and allowances for officers and employees of plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4 for the same period who remained at 4 Mary Road to prevent further damages and pilferage likely to be caused by the illegal occupants."

2. The defendant No.1 has moved application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. wherein it has been prayed that the plaintiffs be directed to pay court‑fee according to the individual claims of each plaintiff or in default thereof reject the plaint. By order dated 27th November, 1983, the office was directed to submit report as to the amount of court‑fees payable on the plaint. The office has submitted report, dated 1st December, 1983 according to which the court‑fees payable has been shown as follows:‑

"In compliance to the Court's order, dated 27th November,1983, office respectfully submits that amount of court‑fee payable on the claim of each of the plaintiff's claim according to prevailing schedule of court‑fee is as under:

COURT‑FEE

Plaintiff No.1 on Rs.3,00,000

as damages vide para. 14 of

the plaint. Rs.8,275

Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 7 on

Rs.25,00,000 as damages vide

para. 15 of plaint. Rs.15,000

Plaintiff No.6 as damages on

Rs.2,00,000 vide para. 16. Rs.5,775

Plaintiff No.9‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑do‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ Rs.5,775

Plaintiff No.3as damages on Rs.1,00,000

Vide para .17 Rs.3,275

Plaintiffs Nos.3,4and 5 as damages

on Rs.10,000 vide para. 18. Rs.3,275

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ do ‑ Rs.36,720 Rs.1,700

The plaintiffs have filed the present suits under Orders II and III, C.P.C. and have paid the maximum court‑fee of Rs.15,000 on the aggregate amount. By Sind Ordinance VII of 1977, the maximum court‑fee payable under first schedule of Court Fees Act shall not exceed in any case Rs.15,000.

ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR."

3. Mr. G. M. Qureshi, the learned counsel, however contended that in view of the fact that the claims mentioned above have arisen out of a single cause of action which is mentioned in para. 22 of the plaint, all the nine plaintiffs have property been joined in the suit under Order I, rule 1 C.P.C.

The question before the Court today is not the maintainability of the suit for joinder of a number of plaintiffs in one suit but the amount of court‑fee which would be payable on the claim/claims made.

Mr. G. M. Qureshi, Advocate rightly stated that section 17 of the Court Fees Act would govern the amount of court‑fee which would be payable on the plaint, for sake of convenience the same, therefore, is reproduced below:‑

"17. Where a suit embraces two or more distinct subjects, the plaint or memorandum of appeal shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the fees to which the plaints or memoranda of appeal in suits embracing separately each of such subjects would be liable under this Act.

Nothing in the former part of this section shall be deemed to affect the power conferred by the Code of Civil Procedure, section 9.

4. Mr. G. M. Qureshi, the learned counsel, for the plaintiffs then referred to the cases reported as A I R 1930 Mad. 833, A I R 1922 Pat.359 and A I R 1953 Hyd. 156. However, I find that in all the above three cases cited by the learned counsel the court‑fee in suits in which claims were made for possession of immovable property and mesne profits. On claims of such nature it was held the court‑fee payable would be on the aggregate value of both the reliefs.

The principle laid down in the above cases in the circumstances of the present suit has no application: Here the plaintiffs as mentioned in paras. 14 to 18 of the plaint reproduced above, have made separate claims for separate amounts on account of separate subjects.

Thus, without going into the question as to the propriety of joinder of all the plaintiffs in the present suit, I am satisfied that reliefs claimed in paras. 14 to 18, by the different plaintiffs, based upon distinct subjects are to be valued separately and even if these could be joined in one suit, court‑fee would be payable separately on value of

each relief.

5. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs then relied upon Ordinance NO‑VII of 1977 (Court Fees (Sind Amendment) Ordinance, 1977) wherein it is provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the First Schedule of the Court Fees Act 1870, court‑fee payable thereunder shall not in any cause exceed Rs.15,000. This provision, however, would not relieve the plaintiffs from liability to pay court‑fee separately under section 17 on each of the distinct subjects on account of which separate claims have been made by different plaintiffs Of course on each separate distinct subject mentioned in each of the pars, 14 to 18, the maximum court‑fee Payable separately would not be more than Rs.15,000. The plaintiffs cannot however claim that they are liable to pay maximum court‑fee amounting to Rs.15,000 on the aggregate value on all the claims made separately on distinct subjects by different plaintiffs having different causes of action. Each set of plaintiffs for separate claims made, would have to establish the claims, independently. I may refer here to the case of Haru Bepari and others v. Roy Kahitish and others A I R 1935 Cal. 573 wherein) one of the learned Judges observed:‑

"There can be no question that apart from the provisions of Order I, rule 1, C.P.C., each of the plaintiffs would have been compelled to institute a separate suit on a properly stamped plaint. Order I, rule 1 merely provides for procedure and has nothing to do with the payment of court‑fees and the point for our decision has to be determined with reference to section 17, Court Fees Act."

6. For the reasons stated above I hold that the plaintiffs are liable to pay court‑fees separately on the amounts claimed separately as shown in paras. 14 to 18 of the plaint. Accordingly the plaintiffs are granted a period of one month to pay the/ deficit court‑fees.

M.B.A. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.