' Objection Case.
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---Learned counsel has referred to the judgment of this Court in Zahoor Ahmad v. Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue (PLD 2007 Lahore 461), wherein the principles are laid down that distinguish a joint petition filed by several petitioners when court fee is payable with reference to each petitioner from the cases when the court fee is payable on a joint petition as one proceeding. The rule reiterated after survey of a number of authorities is contained in para 11 of the judgment which is re-produced below: "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."
2 A careful reading of the judgment and the precedents that are relied therein show that when one petitioner joins several causes of action against different persons court fee is payable separately for each cause of action. This is based on the principle that court fee shall be charged with reference to each claim separately as laid down in Ava A Cowasjee v. Nasreen Nizam Shah (1984 CLC 2705). Again in Ainullah v. Abdul Rashid (1985 SCMR 1991) the causes of action of two tenants under a consolidated judgment were considered to be separate but on account of the omission by the said judgment to identify the appeal in which it was passed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court treated one memo of appeal as being applicable to both tenants. Accordingly, independent causes of action were held to have arisen therefore requiring separate charging of court-fee. Thus although co-petitioners have a common grievance yet it is only when they have a joint cause of action that court fee is chargeable with reference to their joint petition rather than their individual persons.
3. Now in this case the three petitioners are defendants in a suit filed by Ch. Muhammad Aslam and his son Ch. Zahid Aslam for declaration and injunction in respect of land of which the petitioners claim ownership and possession as the heirs of Qadar Dad. Each of the petitioners is an issue of three different children of Qadar Dad. They occupy and are statedly defending their title and possession of common ancestral property under their common/joint rights. Accordingly, this is a case where a joint right is being asserted by the petitioners and their causes of action are in fact joint and therefore one.
4. Consequently, following the rule laid down in Zahoor Ahmad v. Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue (PLD 2007 Lahore 461) court fee is chargeable on their joint petition as one proceeding rather than with reference to the number of petitioners therein. Objection overruled.