PROVINCE OF SINDH vs Haji RAZZAQ And Other
This matter concerns an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the correct legal position concerning the payment of court-fees on suits filed in the original side of the High Court of Sindh (formerly the Karachi Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan) and on appeals arising from judgments and orders passed on that original side. The core legal question addressed was whether the interpretation of the Court Fees Act in relation to these specific filings was correctly applied. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. In doing so, the Court affirmed the legal principle established in the case of Firdous Trading Corporation v. Japan Cotton and General Trading Co. Ltd. (PLD 1961 Kar. 565). The Court held that the view taken in that precedent correctly states the law regarding the requirement and calculation of court-fees for suits and appeals originating from the original side of the High Court. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
- What is the correct legal position regarding the payment of court-fees on suits filed in the original side of the Sindh High Court?
- Does the precedent in Firdous Trading Corporation v. Japan Cotton and General Trading Co. Ltd. correctly state the law on court-fee payments for the original side of the High Court?
- Are court-fees applicable to appeals against judgments and orders passed on the original side of the Sindh High Court?
- Court Fees Act
ORDER
1. For the reason,, recorded separately these appeals are allowed, and the separately these appeals are allowed, and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and it is declared that view taken in the case of Firdous Trading Corporation v. Japan Cotton and General Trading Co. Ltd. (PLD 1961 Kar. 565) as to the payment of court-fee under the Court Fees Act on suits filed in the original side of the former High Court of West Pakistan (Karachi Bench), now Sindh High Court, and on appeals against the judgments and orders passed on the original side of that High Court states the correct position of law.
2. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
Cited by 17 cases
- Samaa TV and others vs Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan and others 2023 SHC 1016
- Fawwad Salim Malik vs Mrs. Samina Ansari and others 2021 SHC 1270, 2022 YLR 2304
- Irfan Wahid vs Lucky Cement Limited and 9 others 2022 PLD Sindh 69
- Messrs LAND MARK ASSOCIATES through partner vs SINDH INDUSTRIAL 2018 YLR 2143
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and others vs Mst. SARDAR BEGUM and others 2017 CLD 1080, 2017 SCMR 999, 2017 SCP 793
- DATA STEEL PIPE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED Versus SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED 2017 CLCN 132
- MUHAMMAD BACHAL through his Attorney vs PROVINCE OF SINDH through Home Secretary, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 12 others 2011 PLJ Karachi 32
- MUHAMMAD BACHAL vs PROVINCE OF SINDH through ' Home Secretary and 12 others 2011 CLC 1450
- MUHAMMAD NAVED ASLAM and 3 others vs Mst. AISHA SIDDIQUI and 14 2011 CLC 1176
- MUHAMMAD NAVEED ASLAM and 3 others vs Mst. AISHA SIDDIQUI and 2 2010 PLD Karachi 261
- Mirza ABDUR RAHIM BAIG And Another vs ABDUL HAQ LASHARI And 3 Other 1994 PLD Karachi 388
- Mirza ABDUR RAHIM BAIG and anothers vs ABDUL HAQ LASHARI and 3 others 1994 PLD Karachi 388
- Messrs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. vs Messrs NISAR RICE MILLS, LAHORE 1993 CLC 1627
- Muhammad Bachal vs Province of Sindh and others
- Muhammad Naved Aslam and others vs Mst. Aisha Siddiqui and others
- Muhammad Naveed Aslam and 3 others vs Mst. Aisha Siddiqui and 14 2011 C.L.R. 1262
- State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through its Chairman etc vs Mst. Sardar Begum and 28 others 2017 SCP 793