' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.1522 of 2005, 1516 of 2005, 1941 of 2005, 2601 of 2005 and 1933 of 2005 as common questions are involved.
2. The grievance being made out in all these writ petitions is that notwithstanding the judgment passed by this Court on 27-1-2003 in Writ Petition No,1996 of 2003, the respondents are levying, demanding and collecting the advertisement fee without complying with the provisions of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. The plea being taken by {{PAGES MISSING 36,37}}
3. We have gone through the copies of the available records. Now the appellants are the L.Rs, of one Mian Manzoor Ahmad Qureshi. According to the plaint, the said Manzoor Ahmad had never mortgaged his land or obtained any loan and accordingly mutation No,586 attested on 30-12-1997 was questioned. With these averments, the following prayer was made:-- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree for the cancellation of Mutation No,586, dated 30- 12-1997 may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against defendant.
' It is further prayed that Mutations Nos.586 and 587, dated 30-12-1997 in favour of A.D.B.P. May kindly be declared illegal and without lawful authority and at the same time NOC for the cancellation of said mutation may kindly be issued in favour of plaintiffs and against defendants."
' The objection raised by the respondent No,1 in the application was that the court-fee is to be paid on the amount of loan entered in the Jamabandi. The learned trial Court passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay Rs,15,000 as court-fee with reference to the case of Mst.
Parveen Akhtar v. Azhar Ali and 2 others 2002 CLC 1549.
4. It is true that the plaint does not appear to be happily worded but it is equally true that the entire plaint is to be read along with the prayer clause or the words used therein for the matter of determination of court-fee in terms of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., of course, read with the provisions of the Court Fees Act, 1870. To our mind, this is a pure and simple case of declaration that the mortgage had not been made by the deceased predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and the mutation be declared to be illegal and void. Now the learned trial Court has stated that this was a case of cancellation of document within the meaning of section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.
The learned trial Court has apparently acted in oblivion of the fact appearing on the face of the record i,e, the mutation is not a document. It is simply a record of an oral transaction reported to a Patwari and thereafter processed by the A Revenue Officer. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, section 39 of the said Act of 1877 is attracted. Now so far as the said judgment of this Court is concerned, it was not a case of mutation and we would leave the matters here. However, in the case of Sewa v. Mst. Santi and others 1992 SCM R 1306 in almost similar circumstances their Lordships held that the case seeking a declaration regarding a mutation is covered by section 7(iv)
(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and the orders passed by the B Courts below including this Court were set aside and the plaint which was valued at Rs,200 was held to be in order. It is indeed shocking that this judgment finds mention in the impugned order but obviously was not read by the learned trial Court. The F.A.O. Is accordingly allowed and the impugned order, dated 20-7-2004 of the learned Judge, Banking Court-II, Multan, is set aside. No orders as to costs.