' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.---This single order will dispose of office objections, on writ petition titled "Zahoor Ahrnad etc. v. Member (Consolidation) BOR etc." and eight petitions with the title of "Mst.
Amina Bibi etc. v. Member (Judicial-II) Board of Revenue etc." as the office objection, in these petitions involves common question of law.
2. Various petitioners in a joint petition have paid court-fee of Rs,500 (rupees five hundred only) despite the office objection that it is payable as per Chapter 3 clause 10(i) of High Court Rules and Orders at the said rate, per petitioner.
' It is contended by Hafiz. Abdur Rehman Ansari, Advocate in eight cases with the title of "Mst. Amina Bibi etc. v. Member (Judicial II)Board of. Revenue etc." that order of Member (Judicial-II) Board of Revenue dated 12-7-2006 is being assailed having common questions of law and one cause of action. He added court-fee is payable is Rs,500 (rupees five hundred only) in respect of one writ petition, where impugned order has been passed through a single judgment and challenged by various persons. He has submitted that earlier in Writ Petitions Nos.14967 of 2004 and 18774 of 2005, more than one petitioners, assailed single order by affixing stamp paper of Rs,500 (rupees five hundred only), the writ petition was entertained and office objection was overruled. Learned counsel with specific reference to his case has submitted that a landlord can seek ejectment of various tenants through single petition, similarly different petitioners can . Seek the redemption of mortgage through one petition. The single order, in such proceedings, is assailable through filing joint writ petition and court-fee livable thereon, is per petition and not on the basis of per petitioner.
Learned counsel went on to argue that according to the provisions of Order I, Rule 1, C.P.C. And Order II, Rule 3, C.P.C. Where common questions of law or fact arise, all persons can join in one suit as plaintiff, for one cause of action. The object is to prevent further litigation and multiplicity of proceedings. He has referred to the case of "Ava A Cowasjee and 8 others v. Nasreen Nizam Shah and 4 others" 1984 CLC 2705 and "Arbab Ghulam Ali Khan and 14 others v. Arbab Muhammad Hussain and 14 others PLD 1986 Peshawar 72 to contend that maximum court-fee of Rs,15,000 (rupees fifteen thousand only) is payable, in a suit having distinct subjects Valuation of all claims can be made separately but to the maximum of Rs,15,000.He went on to argue that separate valuation on all claims made separately and on different footings by different plaintiffs, having common cause of action in one suit, is not legally tenable. Learned counsel supported this contention by placing reliance on "Ham Bepari and athers v. Roy Kshitish Bhusan Roy Bahadur and others (AIR 1935 Calcutta 573).
4. Ch. Iqbal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners in Zahoor Ahmad etc. v. M.B.R." has submitted that the order impugned in the writ petition is by Member Board of Revenue, where through single order the grievance against the consolidation proceedings was disposed of.
Learned counsel submitted that matter involved in this writ petition is a consolidated order in respect of a joint cause of action thus legally the court-fee payable is only Rs,500 (rupees five hundred only). He has referred to the case of "Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner and others PLD 1970 SC 1 to contend that Civil Procedure Code is applicable to the matters falling in writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel in support of this argument found support from the case of "Abdul Malik v. Chief Settlement Commissioner etc." (PLD 1967 Lahore 520). He has submitted that court- fee as per Chapter 4 para.3 clause 10(i) of the High Court Rules and Orders, is payable on each petition. The term used in the above provision is one "petition" and not "petitioner". The petition filed by various petitioners, as per the above referred provision of law, is subject to payment of one court-fee' Office objection that court-fee is livable by each petitioner in a joint petition, is without any lawful justification.
5. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and record perused.
6. Petitioners have refuted the office objections, raising the plea that relief sought for, arises from same order/judgment/act/transaction, there is a common question of law and fact, petitioners are jointly interested in causes of action or proof/evidence required for determination; the question involved in the controversy is the same/common One petition can jointly be filed in such circumstances. Court-fee on petition cannot be legally more than the maximum on aggregate value on all claims made separately. Law is settled that several petitioners, having community of interest and common grievance can file joint petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The question does not need any determination. There is A no restraint on several petitioners to file a joint petition where right to relief arises from the same act or transaction; or when common question of law and fact is involved, or where petitioners are jointly interested in cause or causes of action; or when the evidence/proof for determination of controversy is the same.
7. It is not disputed that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, govern the matters falling in writ jurisdiction, as far as they are not in conflict with the High Court Rules and Orders. To conduct the proceedings under writ jurisdiction, the procedure of Code of 1908, is always resorted to, being general law of procedure.
' S. Now I revert to the other question i,e, livability of court-fee on joint petition by several petitioners.
Court Fees Act, 1870 (Act VII of 1870) nowhere prescribes any fee for the petition filed in the High Court, under Article 199 of the Constitution. The court-fee of Rs,500 (rupees five hundred only) on each petition is livable under Rule 10(i), Part III of Part J. Chapter 4-F of High Court Rules and Orders, Volume V. The question arises, whether several petitioners who, have filed one petition, would be liable to pay one set of court-fee, simply because they have joined as petitioners in one petition.
9. The question of payment of court-fee by several petitioners/ plaintiffs in a joint petition/suit, came up for consideration in various cases The case law on this specific question needs mention:-
(i) Several traders, who are registered dealers in rice and broken rice challenged in a writ petition the interference in the free movement of rice or broken rice, in second or subsequent sale either by rail or by road, within the state or other states of the country. It was held by the Andra Pardesh High Court in the matter of. Grain International (AIR 1981 AP 301) that several petitioners could join in filing a single writ petition. Even if they were allowed to join, they would be liable to pay court-fee as if each one of them had filed a separate writ petition.
(ii) In the case of "Mata Singh v. State of Haryana" (AIR 1984 SC 484) it was held that several truck operators who filed single petition, challenging the imposing of tax, each one has his own cause of action, arising out of liability to pay tax individually and each of such persons would be liable to pay court-fee separately.
(iii) A plaintiff who through a single suit claimed, different amounts from various defendants.
Aggregate amount was more than `25,000, while his claim against each defendant separately, was below Rs,25,000, viz. Exempted from levy of court-fee. It was held by a learned Division Bench of Peshawar High Court in the case of "Arbab Ghulam Ali Khan and 14 others v. Arbab Muhammad Hussain and 14 others" (PLD 1986 Peshawar 72) that claim of plaintiff against each of the defendants Nos.1 to 21 is to be valued separately for the purposes of court-fee.
(iv) In the case of "Ava A Cowasjee and 8 others v. Nasreen Nizam Shah and 4 others" (1984 CLC 2705) a plaintiff filed a single suit claiming different amounts. It was held that claims of different plaintiffs based on distinct subjects, are to be .Valued separately. Plaintiffs were directed to pay court-fee on their respective claims instead of paying maximum court-fee of Rs,15,000 (rupees fifteen thousand only).
(v) In the case of "Ainullah v. Abdul Rashid" (1985 SCMR 1991) two appeals against the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller were filed before the High Court, which were disposed of through a consolidated judgment. Consolidated judgment was assailed before the apex court against which an objection was raised that the consolidated judgment has been passed in two appeals and it is not clear that judgment in which of the two appeals, was assailed in the Supreme Court. The hon'ble Supreme Court instead of treating the memo of appeal in one appeal, treated the memo. In both the appeals, while holding that the objection is valid but being technical in nature, can be ignored and directed to make up the court fee by tendering additional court-fee in respect of other appeal.
10. From the survey of above case law, it can safely be concluded that each petitioner, in a joint petition has his/its own cause of action and relief claimed by such petitioner is to his extent and grievance of each petitioner is individual. The petition by each one of the petitioners in a joint petition, shall be deemed independent and each of such person, shall be liable to pay court-fee separately. The object, of allowing joint petitions, is to avoid conflicting judgments or to allow litigants to conveniently arid properly file one petition without going into a hassle of filing and documenting the petition separately. This however, does not absolve the petitioners from payment of court-fee, separately. Single set of court-fee in such petition is not legal.
11. One set of court-fee is payable by several petitioners only when inter se the petitioners a jural relationship subsists i,e, association of persons registered as a firm or incorporated company etc. Or in the case of public injury leading to public interest litigation, or in case where series of complained/impugned acts arise out of one action or order.
12. In view of what has been discussed above, the objection sustains and the petitioners, who have jointly filed petition, are liable to pay separate court-fee.