ZII.A COUNCIL, SARGODHA vs Haji IRSHAD AHMAD
Civil appeal arose out of a judgment and decree dated 9-1-1991 whereby the trial court rejected the appellant's plaint for non-compliance with an order to make up a deficiency in court-fee. The appellant contended that the requisite amount had been deposited in the Government Treasury, a court-fee stamp was issued but subsequently lost, and a photostat copy was produced. Despite a request to frame an issue and provide an opportunity to lead evidence, the trial court held that the appellant was mandatorily required to purchase a fresh court-fee stamp. The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remanded the matter. It held that if a party deposits the requisite court-fee in the Government Treasury, obtains the stamp, and proves its loss without subsequent withdrawal of funds, the plaint is deemed duly stamped unless the adverse party proves that the stamp was utilized elsewhere. The appellant could only be directed to make up the deficiency if it failed to prove such facts after evidence.
- Whether a plaintiff whose court-fee stamp is lost after deposit of the requisite amount in the Government Treasury is automatically required to purchase a fresh court-fee stamp?
- Whether a trial court can reject a plaint for non-payment of court-fee without framing an issue and recording evidence when the plaintiff claims the purchased court-fee stamp was lost?
- Under what circumstances can a plaint be deemed duly stamped when the physical court-fee stamp has been lost?
- Upon whom does the burden lie to prove that a lost court-fee stamp was utilized for another purpose or case?
MUNIR A. SHAIKH, J: --This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 9-1-1991 through which the trial Court rejected the plaint of the suit filed by the appellant for non-compliance of the order passed by the Court to make up the deficiency in the court-fee.
2. The case of the appellant was that the appellant deposited the requisite amount to purchase the court-fee in the Government Treasury and the court fee stamp was in fact issued to the appellant which was lost and the appellant produced photostat copy of the same but in spite of that the trial Court insisted that a fresh court-fee stamp should have been purchased and placed on the record in compliance with the orders passed by the Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a request was made to the trial Court to frame issue on this point but no opportunity was given to the appellant to prove the said facts.
4. We have gone through the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court has proceeded on the assumption, that even if the requisite amount for purchasing the court-fee stamp had been deposited in the Government Treasury and court-fee stamp had been in fact been issued to him and lost, the appellant was bound to purchase fresh court-fee stamp and place the same on the record. In our view the trial Court has not decided the question regarding court-fee correctly and in accordance with law.
4. If the appellant had deposited the requisite amount for purchasing the court-fee in the Government Treasury 'and court-fee stamp was in fact delivered to him, which is proved to have been lost he could not be burdened with further liability to purchase fresh court-fee stamp unless it was established by the respondents that the said court-fee stamp had been utilized for any other purpose or case.
5. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is not sustainable. This appeal is accepted.
The impugned judgment and decree dated 9-1-1991 is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court to decide the question of court-fee afresh after framing issue and recording evidence. If the appellant proves deposit of requisite amount of court-fee in the Government Treasury and that the same was not subsequently withdrawn, but the court-fee stamp was issued and lost, the plaint shall be deemed to be duly stamped unless the respondents prove that it was utilized for some other case. If the appellant fails to prove the aforementioned facts, only then it shall be called upon to make up the deficiency in the court-fee within the time to be fixed by the Court. There will be no order as to costs. .
Cited by 7 cases
- MUHAMMAD ASGHAR BUTT vs LIAQAT ALT (deceased) etc 2016 PLJ Lahore 820
- MUHAMMAD ASGHAR BUTT Versus LIAQAT ALI through Legal Heirs 2017 CLCN 142
- AZIZ ULLAH KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Finance 2016 C.L.R. 479, 2016 LHC 615, 2016 PLJ Lahore 790, 2016 PLD Lahore 577
- Aziz Ullah Khan vs Government of the Punjab etc 2016 LHC 615
- AZIZ ULLAH KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB etc. 2016 PLJ Lahore 790
- Aziz Ullah Khan vs Government of the Punjab, etc. 2016 C.L.R. 479
- Ch. Muhammad Khalid vs Nazir Ahmad Aslam 2015 C.L.R. 216