P L D 2023 Supreme Court 470

Present: Qazi Faez Isa and Yahya Afridi, JJ

Syed ZAHID HUSSAIN SHAH---Appellant
Versus
MUMTAZ ALI and others---Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2015 of 2022, decided on 9th May, 2023.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 19.05.2022 passed by the
Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in C.R. No. 233 of 2021).
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----Ss. 148, 149 & O.VII, R.11---Court-fees, non-payment of---Power to
make up deficiency of court-fees---Scope---Appellant's application
seeking extension of time for deposit of court-fee was dismissed by the
Appellate Court---Legality---Law requires that a court should first
attend to the matter of court-fees---If court-fees is not paid the plaint
may be rejected---Same principle also applies to memoranda of
appeals---However, in the present case the Appellate Court adopted a
course which the law did not provide; the Court allowed the
appellant's appeal but made his decision subject to payment of court-
fees within thirty days---Appellant submitted an application for
enlargement of time, under sections 148, 149 and 151, C.P.C., in which
he stated that he was not aware of the condition imposing court-fees
and that due to the Covid-19 pandemic and closure of the court he was
unable to make payment within the stipulated thirty days---However,
his application was dismissed---Appellant had paid the court-fees,
which had secured the interest of the State---Non-payment or belated
payment of court-fees does not adversely affect the interest of the
opposite-party---Appellate Court should not have proceeded to decide
the appellant's appeal till he had paid court-fees---Appellant had given
sufficiently valid reasons for extending the time for payment of court-
fees, which the court could extend under sections 148 and 149 of C.P.C.,
therefore, his application seeking extension of time to pay court-fees,
should have been accepted by the Appellate Court---If court-fees was
allowed to be paid the interest of the State would have been secured,
without in any manner undermining the legal rights of the opposite-
party, therefore, it was not understandable why the appellant was not
allowed to pay the court-fees, albeit belatedly---Appeal was allowed,
impugned judgment of Appellate Court was set-aside with the
observations that legal complications arise if a judgment is given, as in
the present case, without applicable court-fees having been paid, and
parties alter their positions pursuant thereto, for instance the
appellant may have proceeded to sell the land which he had purchased
and thus created third-party interest therein, which may give rise to
additional litigation; that such litigation can be avoided if the matter
of court-fees is first settled; that when courts are inundated with cases,
and of those who are keen to proceed with them, it does not stand to
reason to waste court-time by deciding a case in which court-fees has
not been paid.
Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan PLD 1984 SC 289; Provincial
Government through Additional Chief Secretary v. Abdullah Jan 2009
SCMR 1378 and Abdul Khaliq v. Haq Nawaz PLD 2018 SC 729 ref.
Syed Qalb-i-Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
Mumtaz Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Sharif Janjua,
Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
Ayaz Shaukat, Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan, Shaukat Rauf
Siddiqui, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, Ashfaq Ahmad Kharal,
Additional Advocate-General, Punjab on Court's Notice.
Sh. Zamir Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad
Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court, Amicus Curiae.
Date of hearing: 13th December, 2022.
JUDGMENT
Qazi Faez Isa, J. Leave to appeal the judgment of a learned Single
Judge of the Lahore High Court, passed in Civil Revision No. 233 of
2021, was granted by this Court on 30 August 2022, in the following
terms:
'Learned counsel representing the petitioner states that a suit was
filed in respect of land purchased by the petitioner wherein it
was contended that its ownership was not that of those in whose
name it stood but that the plaintiff was its real owner, and those
shown to be the land's owners were actually its benami owners.
The suit was decreed without making the petitioner a party
thereto. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application for setting
aside the decree under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil
Procedure ('C.P.C.'), which was allowed and he was made party
thereto, but the suit was again decreed. Against this decree the
petitioner filed an appeal but he did not affix the applicable
court fee on the appeal, as according to him he was suffering
from Covid-19, and upon recovery moved an application to
condone the delay, which was declined by the learned Judge of
the Appellate Court, whose order was assailed before the High
 Court in Civil Revision and the learned Single Judge of the High
Court sustained the order of the Appellate Court.
2. Learned counsel submits that on merits the petitioner had a very
good case and that the matter of court fee is between the subject
(petitioner) and the State and does not grant a right to the other
side, which he can use to throttle the right of appeal and in this
regard refers to the cases of Abdul Khaliq v. Haq Nawaz (PLD
2018 SC 729), Provincial Government v. Abdullah Jan (2009 SCMR
1378) and Sultan Ahmad v. Khuda Bux (1986 SCMR 1005). Leave
to appeal is granted to consider amongst others, the said points.
Since the matter involves stamp duty, interest of the Province
may be affected, therefore, notice be also issued to the Advocate
General, Punjab.'
2. When we commenced hearing this appeal on 25 October 2022 a
number of additional questions arose which were incorporated in the
order passed on that day, reproduced hereunder:
'Both the learned counsel undertake that their respective clients will
not sell/transfer/gift/mutate any further land till the disposal of
this appeal. The judgment of the appellate court resulted in two
civil revisions in the High Court and now the matter has come
before this Court. All this would not have occurred if the
appellate court had not proceeded with the appeal till the
deposit of the court fee or had simply rejected/ returned the
appeal. We have heard both the learned counsel, however, their
submissions attend to the question with regard to when, where
and if time for payment of court fee should be allowed with
reference to sections 148 and 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908.
2. However, what concerns us is more fundamental, that is:
(a) Whether a court should pass an order in a case in which
requisite court fee has not been paid and pass judgment
deciding the case on merits and prescribe therein the time
within which the court fee should be paid in the order/judgment
deciding the case?
(b) If the requisite court fee is not paid should the appeal be
rejected/ returned as per Order VII Rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, which as per the decision in the case of
Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan (PLD 1984 SC 289), is
applicable to appeals as well?
3. We need to settle the aforesaid questions which have apparently
not been previously considered by this Court. Therefore, we
 would issue notice to the Attorney-General for Pakistan in terms
of Order XXVII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and
appoint M/s Sh. Zamir Hussain, ASC and Mr. Muhammad Munir
Paracha, ASC as amicus curiae. Office to send a copy of the
judgment of the appellate court (at pages 35-49) together with a
copy of today's order and order dated 30 August 2022 of this
Court to the learned Attorney-General for Pakistan and the
learned amicus curiae to enable them to render assistance. The
learned Attorney-General, the learned Advocate-General,
Punjab, learned amicus and the learned counsel for the parties
may submit concise statements addressing the said queries. The
Research Cell of this Court should also submit a comprehensive
note on the said queries. To be fixed in the 2nd week of
December 2022.'
3. The learned Syed Qalb-e-Hassan, representing the appellant,
primarily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Siddique
Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan.1 He also referred to the judgments of
learned Single Judges of the Lahore High Court in the cases of
Muhammad Sharif Khan v. Ghulam Farid2 and Ismail Shah v. Saleh
Muhammad Shah.3 He submitted that the learned Additional District
Judge, Rawalpindi ('ADJ') had decided the appeal in favour of the
appellant, through a fifteen page judgment, and having decided the
appeal the learned ADJ could not then state that, if the court-fees of
fifteen thousand rupees is not paid within thirty days, 'the appeal shall
be deemed to have been dismissed'. In any event the appellant had
submitted an application, given cogent reasons to extend the time for
payment of court-fee, which the appellant was ready to pay, but the
application was dismissed for no good reason. He alternatively
submitted that against the judgment of the learned ADJ the plaintiff in
the suit (respondent No. 1 herein) too had filed a civil revision, under
section 115 of the C.P.C., therefore, the High Court could have exercised
revisional jurisdiction in respect of the revision filed by the
respondents or it could have exercised it itself (suo motu) and
sustained the judgment of the learned ADJ and set aside the judgment
of the learned trial court Judge which was not sustainable in law.
4. The learned Mr. Mumtaz Ali, who represents the respondent No.
1, submitted that the appellant was granted thirty days to pay court-
fees by the learned ADJ but it was not paid therefore the learned ADJ
had dismissed the appeal. He submitted that the judgments of the
appellate and the revisional courts are in accordance with the law. He
next contended that the appellant should not receive a premium for
not paying court-fees. Reliance was also placed on Order XLI, Rule 3 of
the C.P.C. to contend that an appeal has to be filed within a period of
thirty days, and that an appeal filed without affixing applicable court-
fees does not constitute an appeal. Learned Mr. Mumtaz Ali also
submitted that resort cannot be had to section 148 of the C.P.C. to seek
enlargement of time because this section only applies in respect of
those time periods mentioned in the C.P.C., and that neither payment
of court-fees nor the period within which it is to be paid is mentioned
therein.
5. Notice was issued to the Attorney-General for Pakistan under
Order XXVIIA of the C.P.C. on 25 October 2022, however, it transpired
that the office of the Attorney-General was lying vacant.4 Mr. Ayaz
Shaukat, Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan ('D.A.G.') attended this
Court but since neither Order XXVIIA of the C.P.C. nor the Constitution
of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan mentions an Additional, Deputy or
Assistant Attorney-General, therefore, they cannot represent the
Attorney-General when the office of the Attorney-General is vacant.
However, we heard Mr. Ayaz Shaukat's submissions but did so not in
his capacity as D.A.G., representing the Attorney-General for Pakistan,
but as an advocate providing assistance to the Court.
6. The learned Mr. Ayaz Shaukat referred to a decision of this Court
in the case of Fida Muhammad v. Muhammad Khan,5 which was by a
four-member Bench, and stated that it had not followed the earlier
decision of a two-member Bench judgment in the case of Walayat
Khatun v. Khalil Khan,6 and had instead reiterated the decision in the
Siddique Khan case (above). He stated that unnecessary complications
are created when decisions are made subject to payment of court-fees.
According to him, the proper course to take when court-fees is not paid
is for the court to stay its hands till it is paid, failing which reject the
plaint on the ground of non-payment and to do so without deciding the
case on merits. He further submits that the language of Order VII, Rule
11(c) of the C.P.C. suggests that it is also applicable to appellate and
revisional courts. Reference was also made to section 10(ii) of the
Court-Fees Act, 1870, which stipulates that if applicable court-fees has
not been paid 'the suit shall be stayed until additional fee is paid', and
'if the additional fee is not paid within such time as the Court shall fix,
the suit shall be dismissed.' He also referred to the case of Provincial
Government through Additional Chief Secretary v. Abdullah Jan,7
wherein it was held that cases should be decided in a 'fair and just'
manner and on merits and that the object of the Court-Fees Act, 1870
'is to secure revenue for the benefit of State and not to arm the litigant
with weapon of technicalities to harass'.
7. Mr. Shaukat Rauf Siddiqui, the learned Additional Advocate-
General, Punjab agreed with the submissions of the learned Mr. Ayaz
Shaukat and also relied upon the judgment in the case of Dost
Muhammad v. Nazar Hussain Khan.8
8. The learned amicus Sh. Zamir Hussain submitted that it is
undesirable for courts to decide cases before court-fees is paid and
referred to Order VII, Rule 11(c) of the C.P.C. which stipulates that a
'plaint shall be rejected' if court-fees is not paid. He referred to
sections 148 and 149 of the C.P.C. and to the following cases: Walaiti
Ram v. Gopiram,9 Sundar Pandit v. Mahadeo Prasad,10 Mahanth Ram
Das v. Ganga Das.11 Reference was also made to cases of Mst.
Saddiqunnisa v. Muhammad Sultan Mirza,12 Ghulam Rasum v.
Additional District Judge, Lahore,13 Auquf Department Punjab v. Saeed
Ahmad14 and to a decision (of the same learned Judge whose judgment
is assailed herein) in the case of Muhammad Tariq v. Amjad Ali15
which had relied on this Court's decision in the case of Assistant
Commissioner and Land Acquisition Collector v. Abdul Shakoor,16
however, he submitted that in that case the door for paying court-fees
subsequently had not been closed.
9. The learned amicus Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha stated that
the decision in Walayat Khatun, which was by a two-member Bench of
this Court, was effectively overruled by a four-member Bench of this
Court in the case of Siddique Khan, which, according to the learned
amicus expressed the correct legal view. Reference was also made to
the judgment in the case of Shah Wali v. Ghulam Din,17 a decision by a
five-member bench of this Court, where it was held that, if the
plaintiff-respondent did not pay the correct amount in a pre-emption
suit his suit should have been dismissed.
10. That while this appeal was pending the appellant paid the
applicable court-fees of fifteen thousand rupees; through C.M.A. No.
10149/2022 the paid challan and stamp paper of fifteen thousand
rupees were brought on record.
11. The facts of the case are that Mumtaz Ali (respondent No. 1) had
filed a suit against the legal heirs of his sister Mst. Gul Nargas and her
husband Muhammad Ghaffar ('the Legal Heirs') alleging that the
following tracts of agricultural lands, situated in Moza Gorakhpur and
Moza Adiala of Tehsil and District Rawalpindi, were paid for by him
and bought by him in the name of his sister and brother-in-law, that is,
they were its ostensible (benami) owners. The particulars
of the alleged benami land, that is, sale deed number, date, area,
price and name of buyer are respectively mentioned herein below
('the Lands'):
Sale Date Area Price Buyer
Deed
No.
(1) 12217 2.11.1987 20 kanals 140,000 Muhammad
Ghaffar
(2) 12237 2.11.1987 20 kanals 140,000 Muhammad
Ghaffar
(3) 6523 27.4.1988 10 kanals 72,000 Muhammad
&5 Ghaffar
marlas
(4) 6524 27.4.1988 12 kanals 84,000 Muhammad
Ghaffar
(5) 8142 22.8.1989 46 kanals 230,000 Muhammad
Ghaffar
(6) 8143 22.8.1989 60 kanals 300,000 Muhammad
Ghaffar
(7) 3360 18.3.1990 14 kanals 70,000 Muhammad
& 15 Ghaffar
marlas
(8) 3361 18.3.1990 9 kanals 36,000 Muhammad
Ghaffar
(9) 5733 23.5.1990 1 kanals 20,000 Muhammad
& 20 Ghaffar
3kanals
(10) 5734 23.5.1990 14 kanals 10,000 Muhammad
Ghaffar
(11)
(12) 11975 25.11.1990 10 kanals 60,000 Mst. Gul
Nargis
(13)
(1 2453 28.2.1991 20 kanals 100,000 Mst. Gul
Nargis
2)
Total 214
kanals &
17 marlas

12. Mumtaz Ali alleged that his sister and brother-in-law were the
ostensible owners (benamidars) of the Lands, but filed the suit in 2003
after their deaths, therefore, the purported benamidars could not
controvert the allegation themselves. The Lands had stood in the
names of Mst. Gul Nargis and Muhammad Ghaffar for 16, 15, 14, 13
and 12 years respectively and there was no explanation in the plaint
why Mumtaz Ali had not earlier asserted his purported ownership to
the Lands. The reason mentioned in the plaint by the plaintiff for
buying the Lands in the names of his sister and brother-in-law was
that he 'wanted to do business of purchasing land and after the same,
to divide in plots and sell the same on profit, in the year 1987' and that
the purported benamidars had 'agreed to help him in the aforesaid
business as the plaintiff was serving in Saudi Arabia in the year 1987.'
The Legal Heirs denied the allegations and claimed compensatory
costs.
13. Out of the Lands the Legal Heirs sold the following lands to Syed
Zahid Hussain Shah (the appellant herein) through the following sale
mutations ('the Sales Mutations'):
Sale Mutations Sanctioned on Area
Nos.
(1) 9987 28.7.2005 20 kanals and 10
marlas
(2) 9988 28.7.2005 3 kanals and 6 marlas
(3) 10014 24.11.2005 8 kanals and 18 marlas
(4) 10015 24.11.2005 1 kanal and 2 marlas
(5) 10017 24.11.2005 2 kanals and 4 marlas
(6) 3806 28.9.2007 15 kanals and 8 marlas
(7) 10803 13.10.2007 44 kanals and 4 marlas
(8) 10962 22.7.2009 14 kanals and 15
marlas
Total 110 kanals and 7
marlas

The appellant was subsequently arrayed as defendant No. 16 in the

suit when his application, filed under section 12(2) C.P.C., was accepted
and the case was remanded to the learned Civil Judge.
14. The learned Civil Judge, vide judgment dated 30 October 2019,
decreed the suit. The plaintiff was declared to be the owner of the
Lands and it was held that Mst. Gul Nargis and Muhammad Ghaffar
were his benamidars. The Sale Mutations were cancelled, however, the
learned Civil Judge held that since the appellant 'was bona fide
purchaser and he had no knowledge about pendency of suit',
therefore, he was entitled to receive 'compensation' from the Legal
Heirs 'as per current market value.' The appellant assailed the learned
Civil Judge's judgment and his appeal was allowed subject to payment
of court-fees. However, since court-fees was not paid the judgment of
the Appellate Court stood recalled. The appellant then filed a civil
revision before the High Court. The learned Judge of the High Court,
through the impugned judgment, upheld the decision of the Appellate
Court which had disentitled the appellant because of non-payment of
court-fees; without deciding the case on merits. Therefore, it would be
appropriate to first attend to the matter of non-payment of court-fees
because if we come to the conclusion that the judgments of the
Appellate Court and High Court on this score are not sustainable then
it would be best to remand the case to the High Court.
15. On the question of non-payment of court-fees we have heard the
submissions of the learned counsel and benefited from the assistance
provided by the learned amicus. We proceed to consider the cited
cases with regard to non-payment of court-fees.
16. This Court had noted the object and scope of the Court-Fees Act,
1870 in the case of Abdul Khaliq,18 which was that, 'The Court Fees Act
being a fiscal statute has been enacted to collect revenue for the State.
It has not been enacted to arm a litigant with a view of technicality
against his opponent. Therefore, neither the Court of law nor a litigant
could use this law as a noose to strangulate a right which otherwise
stands established.' In Provincial Government v. Abdullah Jan,19 a
three-member Bench of this Court held that, 'the Court Fees Act, 1870
is a taxing statute, which would be interpreted in favour of the subject.
... because the basic object of all the [taxing] statutes are to secure
revenue for the benefit of the State and not to arm the litigant with the
weapon of technicality.20
17. The question whether insufficient court-fees paid on two pre-
emption suits could be the reason for their dismissal was considered
in the case of Sultan Ahmad,21 and a four-member Bench of this Court
held that pursuant to section 149 of the C.P.C. the court could exercise
its power to make up deficiency of court-fees and extend time. It was
held that, 'the Court was amply empowered to extend the time for
doing the needful as earlier ordered or even pass a fresh order to the
same effect by a specified future date. It is well-settled that the power
vesting in the Court under section 148, C.P.C. can be exercised
successively and even after the time under previous such order has
expired.'22 However, in Walayat Khatun v. Khalil Khan23 leave to
appeal was not granted against the discretion concurrently exercised
by three courts in not further extending the time to deposit the
requisite court-fees in a pre-emption. But, in Shah Wali v Ghulam
Din24 time to deposit the balance of the decretal amount in a pre-
emption suit was extended by a five-member of this Court.
18. The Supreme Court of India in Mahanth Ram v. Ganga Das25 held
that, under sections 148 and 149, C.P.C. the Court could enlarge time
even after the time earlier fixed had expired. In Nazir Ahmad Bhatti v.
M. Younus26 a learned Judge of the High Court held that Order VII,
Rule 11, C.P.C. requires that if the Court finds that applicable court-fees
is not paid the plaintiff should be called upon to pay it within the time
given to do it but if he fails to do so then it should reject the plaint,
however, since such an opportunity had not been provided the case
was remanded to provide such opportunity.
19. A four-member Bench of this Court in the case of Siddique Khan
v. Abdul Shakur Khan27 observed that by virtue of section 107(2) of the
C.P.C., 'Order VII, rule 11(b) and (c) applies to plaints as also to
memoranda of appeals,'28 and, if the memorandum of appeal is not
sufficiently stamped it should not be rejected without providing an
opportunity 'to supply the required court-fee.'29 This decision was
endorsed in Fida Muhammad v Muhammad Khan,30 another decision
by a four-member Bench. However, a three-member Bench of this
Court in Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Collector v.
Abdul Shakoor31 declined to grant leave to appeal against the order of
the High Court which had dismissed the appeal because the requisite
court-fees was not paid within the prescribed limitation period and
noted that the appellant was negligent and his conduct was
contumacious. In Muhammad Tariq v Amjad Ali32 the plaintiffs had
claimed land on the basis of a purported gift, which they had failed to
establish and the appeal against the civil court's judgment remained
pending for a period of two years and ten months which was finally
dismissed for non-payment of applicable court-fees, and a learned
Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed the civil revision by
upholding the decisions of the subordinate courts.
20. About a hundred years ago the Lahore High Court had decided
in the case of Ismail Shah v. Saleh Muhammad Shah33 that when a suit
is dismissed on merits then an order for additional court-fees was
incompetent. And, in Walaiti Ram v. Gopiram,34 decided ten years
thereafter it was held that the question regarding court-fees should be
decided at the earliest opportunity and if the suit is incorrectly valued
and insufficient court-fees is paid then the valuation should be
corrected and order for the payment of court-fees be passed, and if the
applicable court-fees is not paid then the plaint should be rejected
under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., and that it was improper to decide the
suit on merits and require the payment of deficient court-fees.
21. An unnecessary problem was created by the Appellate Court
which decided the appeal, but made its judgment subject to payment
of court-fees. The law requires that a court should first attend to the
matter of court-fees. If court-fees is not paid the plaint may be
rejected; in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan case (above) it was
held that the same also applies to memoranda of appeals. However,
the Appellate Court adopted a course which the law does not provide.
The learned ADJ allowed the appellant's appeal but made his decision
subject to payment of court-fees within thirty days. The appellant
submitted an application for enlargement of time, under sections 148,
149 and 151 C.P.C., in which he stated that he was not aware of the
condition imposing court-fees and that due to the Covid-19 pandemic
and closure of the court he was unable to make payment within the
stipulated thirty days. However, his application was dismissed. As
noted above the appellant has paid the court-fees, which has secured
the interest of the State.
22. The question which requires consideration is whether the
respondents' rights were infringed or interest undermined on account
of non-payment of court-fees or by its belated payment. This Court in
Provincial Government v. Abdullah Jan and in Abdul Khaliq v. Haq
Nawaz (above) held that the Court-Fees Act, 1870 is a taxing statute
which collects revenue for the State, and that it does not create any
right in a party nor extinguishes any party's right. If the court-fees was
a right vesting in a party then a court could not waive its payment.
However, if a person is financially incapable of paying court-fees the
C.P.C. permits filing of a suit without payment of court-fees and the
plaintiff therein is enabled to submit an application under Order
XXXIII of the C.P.C. to sue as a pauper, that is, without paying court-
fees; there is no reason not to apply the same principle to appeals too.
If payment of court-fees had created a right in the opposite-party the
law would not have permitted entertaining an application (under
Order XXXIII C.P.C.) seeking permission to sue as a pauper and file a
suit without court-fees nor empowered the court to grant such
application.
23. In our opinion the cases in which money is due to the opposite-
party, such as sale consideration in a suit seeking specific performance
of contract or a statutory provision requiring deposit of the amount in
a preemption suit to secure the interest of the purchaser, cannot be
equated with cases in which court-fees is not paid or belatedly paid;
payment of court-fees is not received by the opposite-party. Non-
payment or belated payment of court-fees does not adversely affect the
interest of the opposite- party. The learned ADJ should not have
proceeded to decide the appellant's appeal till he had paid court-fees.
In the instant case the appeal was allowed, and thus it would have
been in the interest of the appellant to have paid it. If instead the
appeal was dismissed the appellant may not have had an interest to
pay it.
24. The appellant had given sufficiently valid reasons for extending
the time for payment of court-fees, which the court could extend
under sections 148 and 149 of C.P.C., therefore, his application seeking
extension of time to pay court-fees, should have been accepted by the
learned ADJ, failing which the learned Judge of the High Court should
have allowed the civil revision filed against the decision because the
learned ADJ had acted illegally or with material irregularity in respect
of the jurisdiction vested in the Court.35 If court-fees was allowed to be
paid the interest of the State would have been secured, without in any
manner undermining the legal rights of the opposite-party. It is not
understandable why the appellant was not allowed to pay the court-
fees, albeit belatedly. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment
and the decision of the learned ADJ to the extent that he had dismissed
the appellant's application seeking extension of time for deposit of
court-fees which (as stated above) has been paid and do so by allowing
this appeal and Civil Revision No. 233 of 2021 filed by the appellant in
the High Court. However, the plaintiff in the suit (respondent No. 1
herein) had also assailed the judgment of the learned ADJ and had
filed Civil Revision No. 306 of 2020;36 it is not clear what became of
this case. Therefore, Civil Revision No. 306 of 2020 and any other case
filed by the respondents against the learned ADJ's judgment shall be
deemed pending before the High Court which shall be decided on
merits. In case such case(s) were withdrawn/disposed of the
respondents shall be entitled to assail the merits of the judgment dated
19 June, 2020 of the learned ADJ, Rawalpindi passed in Civil Appeal No.
401 of 2019, within the prescribed period which shall commence from
the date of receipt of this judgment.
25. Before parting with this judgment we would like to observe that
legal complications arise if a judgment is given, as in the instant case,
without applicable court-fees having been paid, and parties alter their
positions pursuant thereto, for instance the appellant may have
proceeded to sell the land which he had purchased and thus create
third-party interest therein, which may give rise to additional
litigation. Such litigation can be avoided if the matter of court-fees is
first settled. Moreover, when courts are inundated with cases, and of
those who are keen to proceed with them, it does not stand to reason
to waste court-time by deciding a case in which court-fees has not
been paid.
26. We are grateful to the learned amicus and the learned counsel
for their assistance. Office to send a copy of this judgment to those
respondents who were not represented before this Court.
MWA/Z-5/SC Appeal allowed.
;