' MUHAMMAD QAIM JAN KHAN, J.---- This civil appeal has been directed against the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta dated 7-4-2004 vide which the appeal of the appellants has been dismissed with no order as to cost
2. Short facts of the case are that after chequred and prolong correspondence between respondent No,24 and the Provincial Government, an award was announced by respondent No,24 on 8-11-1999 for an area of 46282 square feet against a sum of Rs,45,24,065/50 at the rate of Rs,97.75 per square foot inclusive of 15% compulsory acquisition charges.
' Feeling aggrieved with the price fixed by the collector, the appellants filed a reference under section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the Court of District Judge, Quetta which was marked to Additional District Judge-V, Quetta. Notices were issued to the respondents.
Respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed their written statements while the remaining were proceeded against ex parte. The trial Court framed almost 5 issues apart from relief. List of the witnesses have been filed along with documents and keeping in view the legal nature of the reference, the trial Court directed the respective parties to argue the case before him. Arguments were heard and ultimately the reference was rejected vide order dated 17-4-2001 and the award of respondent No,24 is maintained.
3. Dissatisfied with the order of the trial Court, appellants preferred appeal before the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta and a learned Single Judge of the said Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, dismissed the appeal of the appellants vide judgment dated 7-4-2004 on the grounds of deficiency in court-fee, despite chances given to the appellants.
Hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the valuable rights of the appellants are involved, but have been knocked out on technical grounds and thus, public money has been wasted; that the Court has got sufficient power, to enlarge the time to make good the deficiency, but despite request the time was not granted. He argued that section 148 has got a liberal interpretation and thus, it should be taken liberally, further contended that the appeal was within time and the property worth thousands of rupees have been acquired at a very nominal rate.
Learned counsel referred to Muhammad Sarwar Khan v. Said Hussain Khan PLD 2007 SC (AJ&K) 1 and argued that party should not be penalized for the negligence of his counsel as Court Fees Act,.
1870 is a taxing statute.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 4, argued that time limit cannot be condoned and that the appellants have availed sufficient time for making good the deficiency in court-fee, further contended that once an opportunity has not been availed by the appellants, they cannot be granted another opportunity and the appellants despite a long time of 4 months have, not complied with the orders of the Court, which is contumacious. Learned counsel referred to Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Collector, Badin v. Haji Abdul Shakoor and others 1997 SCMR 919, Riffat Iqbal v. Mst. Fatima Bibi and others 2007 SCMR 494, Mubarak Ahmad and 2 others v. Hassan Muhammad through Legal Heirs 2001 SCMR 1868, Abdul Sattar Khan and another v. Hafiz Muhammad Bakhsh and another 1979 SCMR 243 and Mst. Walayat Khatun v. Khalil Khan and another PLD 1979 SC 821,
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the relevant record and the respective rulings produced by the counsel for the parties. The crux of the rulings of this Court is that when there is negligence or contumacious attitude, then in A no way the time in making of the deficiency of court-fee should be granted. Similar is the case with the two rulings referred to by the Honourable High Court i,e, 1997 SCMR 919 and PLD 1979 SC 821. The present case is somewhat, on a different footing. In the instant case, the appeal is perfectly within time and there is no queslion of limitation. As far as the contumacy and positive mala fide is concerned, a person of the calibre of the appellants' counsel, who got a long standing career cannot dare to have a contumacious attitude or positive mala fide and thus, deficiency occurred due to professional engagement and rush of work, but leaving aside these factors, it is an established practice of the higher courts that parties should not be penalized for the negligence of their counsel or staff of the Court, because the Court Fees Act, 1870 is a taxing statute, which would be interpreted in favour of the subject. The provision of Court Fees Act and other fiscal statutes were to be construed strictly in favour of subject, because the basic object of all the statutes are to secure revenue for the benefit of the State and not to arm the litigant with the weapon of technicality. It is also an established fact that where the provision is open to two reasonably possible interpretations, then the one favouring the taxpayer should be adopted. Reference can be had to Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another PLD 1984 SC 289 and Mubarak Ahmad v. Sub-Registrar, District Courts, Faisalabad and 4 others 1993 CLC 1666. In the instant case, a property of a very high cost has been acquired for a nominal price which would certainly damage the government as well as the respondents and public at large because public revenue is involved. The trial Court has decided the case on some what different grounds and the Honourable High Court has knocked down the appellants on technical ground i,e, deficiency of court-fee. We are not inclined to defeat the valuable rights of the appellants as well as the respondents to be defeated by technicalities and it will be fair and just that the present case should be decided on merits for the simple reasons that the object of the Act is to secure revenue for the benefit of State and not to arm the litigant with weapon of technicalities to harass his opponent. Moreover, limitation is also not a hurdle. Reference can be had to the above-mentioned authority i,e, PLD 1984 SC 289. In these circumstances, we allow the appeal and direct the appellants to make up the deficiency in court-fee and remand the case back to the Honourable High Court while setting aside the judgment dated 7-4-2004 with further direction to decide the case on merits.