Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 2181 of 1986, decided on 5th November, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 7(ii)‑‑Punjab Government Notification No. 353‑80/248‑ST‑1, dated 2‑4‑1980‑‑Court‑fee‑‑Exemption‑‑Limit‑‑Value of subject‑matter exceeding exemption limit granted by Government vide Notification, dated 2‑4‑1980‑‑Effect‑‑Court‑fee for a subject‑matter would be determined in accordance with S.7(ii)‑‑Appellant filing memorandum of appeal insufficiently stamped, failing to make up deficiency in court‑fee in spite of opportunity granted to him by Court in that respect‑‑Appeal, held, was rightly dismissed by Court on ground of insufficiency of court‑fee in circumstances. [p. 647] A

Abdul Ghafoor v. Muhammad Rafiq and others P L D 1983 Lah. 383; Muhammad Anwar Khan v. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi PLD 1978 Lah. 716 and Hamida Begum v. 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi and another N L R 1982 U . C . 501 ref.

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Order passed by appellate Court not suffering from any legal or jurisdictional defect, held, could not be interfered with in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction high Court.

Ch. Muhammad Afzal Wahlah for Petitioner.

Ch. Liaqat Ali Sandhu for Respondents.

Mst. Allah Rakhi respondent wife of the petitioner filed a suit for maintenance as well as for the recovery of dower amounting to Rs.10,000 against the petitioner. Both the suits were consolidated. The petitioner contested the suits. After recording evidence the Judge Family Court, Gujranwala vide judgment and decree, dated 23‑11‑1985 decreed both the suits and granted her maintenance at the rate of Rs.500 per month and past maintenance at the same rate from October, 1984 to November, 1985. The suit for dower was also decreed and the petitioner was ordered to pay Rs.10,000. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed two separate appeals. The appeal relating to the payment of dower money was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala vide his judgment and decree, dated 5‑4‑1985. However, the appeal pertaining to the maintenance was dismissed on 24‑3‑1986 for the non‑payment of court‑fee despite having been granted an opportunity for making up the deficiency.

The petitioner was directed to pay the arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs.6,500 and to pay future monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.500 p.m. The petitioner had affixed the court‑fee of 15 rupees only on the memo. of appeal. An objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that proper court‑fee had not been paid by the petitioner.

It was contended that the petitioner was required to pay court‑fees under section 7 subsection (2) of the Court‑fees Act which provided that in suits for sums payable periodically the value shall be in accordance with the subject‑matter and shall be 10 times of the amount claimed to be payable for one year. The learned appellate Court accepted the plea of the respondent and directed the petitioner to make up the deficiency in court‑fees amounting to Rs.4972 till 22‑3‑1986. The petitioner failed to comply with the direction of the learned Additional District Judge and in consequence his appeal was dismissed. Hence, this Constitutional petition.

2. It is contended that memorandum of appeal was exempt from court‑fees. In view of the Punjab Government Notification No. 353‑80/ 248‑ST‑1, dated 2‑4‑1980 reliance has been placed on Abdul Ghafoor v. Muhammad Rafiq and others P L D 1983 Lah. 383.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently contested the petition. According to him since the value of the subject‑matter exceeded RS 25, 000, therefore, the Court‑fees as determined by section 7 subsection (2) of the Court‑fees Act was payable. He has referred to Muhammad Anwar Khan v. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi PLD 978 Lah. 716 and Hamida Begum v. 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi and another N L R 1982 U.C. 501. In the latter case, it was observed that the concession with regard to reduction in the court‑fees is restricted to a plaint only by section 19 of the West Pakistan Family Court Act, 1964 but the omission of 'Memorandum of Appeal' in this section is significant particularly, as both a plaint and a memorandum of appeal are included in the Article I Schedule I of the Court‑fees Act as attracting ad valorem court‑fees. It is thus clear that the Legislature intended to exclude from the purview of section 19 of the said Act, 'Memorandum of Appeal'.

4. I have given anxious consideration to the matter in controversy . I am of the view that the exemption as granted by the Punjab Government vide Notification, dated 2‑4‑1980 would be available if the value of the subject‑matter does not exceed Rs.25,000 but since in the present case the value of the subject‑matter exceeds Rs.25,000 the said exemption is not available and the court‑fees would be determined by section 7 subsection(2) of the Court‑fees Act. In this view of the matter the learned Additional District Judge had rightly held the petitioner to be liable to pay Court‑fees in accordance with the provisions of section 7 subsection (2) of the Court‑fees Act. He had granted an opportunity to the petitioner for making up the deficiency but he failed to do so resulting in the dismissal of his appeal. No legal or jurisdictional defect appears in the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge. In consequence, the petitioner fails and is dismissed accordingly.

H. B. T./511/L Petition 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.