SAID RAHMAN Versus STATE

ORDER

1. DAVID IQBAL, J. ‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 7th March, 1983.

2. Briefly the facts are that Muhammad Saeed respondent brought a suit against his brothers, sisters and brother's sons and widow for administration of the estate and partition of the property left by his late father, for possession of the same as well as for possession of his share of the property, for settlement of accounts and for recovery of mesne profits. On the plaint which he filed he paid Rupees ten worth of court‑fee although the value of the case for the purpose of jurisdiction was mentioned as Rs. 6,50,000. The present petitioners as well as respondents 2 to 8 took exception to the sufficiency of court‑fee paid by Muhammad Saeed respondent on the ground that he should have paid court‑fee on the amount of the value of his share which he had himself assessed at Rs. 6,50,000. The trial Court ordered that he should pay court‑fee of Rs. 15,000, whereupon he challenged the said order in civil revision before the Lahore High Court, Lahore which was accepted and the order of the Civil Judge was set aside. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. The matter relates to the payment of court‑fee and the High Court after looking into the matter had arrived at the conclusion that since Muhammad Saeed respondent was in partial possession of the disputed property, the court‑fee payable in the case of such a suit was to be no more than rupees ten under the relevant provisions of the Court‑Fee Act as the subject‑matter of the dispute could not be estimated in terms of money value. Consequently it is not a fit case for the grant of leave. This petition is accordingly dismissed.

4. M.Y.H./G‑136/S Petition dismissed.