Find a Lawyer

Regular Second Appeal No. 548 of 1975, decided on 6th May, 1981.

‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7(v) [as amended by Punjab Finance Act (XI V of 1973) ]‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100‑ Pre‑emption suit‑‑ Court‑fee‑‑ Appeal‑‑Suit instituted before enforcement of substituted cl. (v) of S.7, Court Fees Act by Punjab Finance Act, 1973 and pre‑emption decree passed after substitution thereof‑‑Appeals in .such decree to be valued according to substituted cl. (v) and accompanied by court‑fee at fifteen times net profit of land‑‑Vendee failing to pay fee at this rate at his first and second appeals against decree passed in a suit valued at ten .times land revenue of land in dispute as existing before substituted cl. (v)‑‑First and second appeals filed by vendee, held, could not be adjudicated on merits because of their incompetency on account of deficient court-fee‑‑Vendee not complying with direction of Taxing Officer to pay requisite court‑fee within period of limitation prescribed for filing second appeal and. not deserving indulgence due to their negligence and contumacy‑‑Appeal dismissed.

H.M. Nazir for Appellants.

Ch. Muhammad Abdullah Bajwa for Respondent No.1.

C.A. Rehman for Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 6th May, 1981.

On 8th June 1963, the respondent, Ch. Sardar Khan, filed a suit against the appellants, Muhammad Tufail and another, for possession of certain land through pre‑emption. The suit was decreed by the Administrative Civil Judge, Gujranwala, on 29th October, 1974. The judgment and decree of the learned trial Court were challenged by the appellants by means of an appeal, which was dismissed by the District Judge, Gujranwala, on 3rd June 1975, for being time‑barred. The appellants have, therefore, filed the second appeal in hand.

2. At the time of the filing of the suit the respondent had fixed its value for the purpose of court‑fee Rs. 241 that is ten times the land revenue of the disputed land. It was correctly fixed according to law as prevailing at the time of the institution of the suit. Subsequently, the law was amended by means of the Punjab Finance Act, 1973 and according to the amended law the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court‑fee was to be fixed at fifteen times the net profits of the land. Since the law was amended before the filing of first appeal by the appellants it was their duty to value their first appeal and pay court‑fee thereon in accordance with the amended law but they had failed to do so. On the filing of the second appeal by them the stamp Reporter of this Court objected to the valuation of the appeal as fixed for the suit. His objection was contested by the appellants whereupon the Taxing officer, namely, the Registrar of this Court directed the appellants on 25th August, 1975 to pay court‑fee according to the amended law within 1 months. Thereafter, the appellants paid additional court‑fee but it was pointed out by the respondent that the same was also deficient.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties in the matter of payment of court‑fee for the appeal in hand.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that in compliance with the direction of the Taxing Officer the appellants had paid additional court‑fee on the basis of the statement of the net profits for the year 1973‑74 and thus they had paid the requisite court‑fee on their second appeal. ' In the aforesaid statement the annual net profits of the disputed land had been worked out at Rs.1,362.83 and the appellants have paid court‑fee accordingly. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellants ought to have paid court‑fee according to the net profits for the year 1974‑75 which came to Rs.1,635 but as they had not done so, their appeal was liable to be dismissed.

5. This second appeal was filed by the appellants on 18th August, 1975. The year immediately proceeding the said date was the year 1974‑75, that is Kharif 1974 and Rabi 1975. Admittedly, the appellant paid court‑fee according to the statement of the net profits for the year 1973‑74 and not the year 1974‑75. Thus, they had failed to comply with the direction of the Taxing Officer. This speaks of their negligence and contumacy and, therefore, they do not deserve any further indulgence in the matter of payment of court‑fee. Since the appellants had not paid the requisite court‑fee within the period of limitation prescribed for the filing of the second appeal or the period allowed bye Officer, their appeal is liable to be dismissed on that ground.

6. It was not only in this Court but also in the first Court of appeal that the appellants had exhibited gross negligence in connection with the payment of court‑fee, as explained above, they did not pay the court‑fee for the first appeal also according to the statement of the net profits although the law had been amended long before the filing of the first appeal. In other words, their first appeal also deserved to be dismissed for being no appeal in the eye of law. The appellant shall, therefore be deemed to have not filed a validly constituted first appeal and for that reason also they were not entitled to prefer the second appeal in hand.

7. Looking from either of the two angles indicated above, the appeal before me merits dismissal, with costs, and I order accordingly.

M.Y.H Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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