' SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J. --- Respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 53,42,460/- as damages against the petitioner before the learned Trial Court at Lahore. While entertaining the said suit, the learned Civil Judge directed the respondent/plaintiff to submit requisite Court-fee to the tune of Rs.
15,000/-. The respondent instead of purchasing fresh stamp papers, submitted Court-fee which was earlier used and submitted in another case and by order of Court, the same was returned and resultantly produced before the learned Trial Court in this case; the same was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 09.01.2014, which has been called into question through this civil revision by the petitioner.
2. While opening arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is beyond the jurisdiction vested in learned Trial Court; that the learned Trial Court has erred in law while relying on the judgments produced before it; which actually does not apply to the facts of the case; that purchaser of Court-fee neither appeared before the learned Trial Court nor his Court-fee can be used in the case of respondent/plaintiff; that even otherwise, the Court-fee once purchased and used in a case is not originally returned but amount of the same value is returned; that if the impugned order is not set aside, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and mental agony in the shape of pendency of frivolous suit filed by the respondent; hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set aside; resultantly, the suit of the respondent/plaintiff may be dismissed for noncomplying with the order of learned Trial Court regarding affixation of Court-fee. Relies on Emperor v. Abdul Hakim AIR 1931 Lahore 337, Zila Council, Sargodha v. Haji Irshad Ahmad 1994 CLC 79 Lahore and Syed Bunyad Ali Shah and 5 others v. Mst.
Bibi Khair-un-Nisa and another 1981 CLC 121 (SC (AJ&K).
3. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, by favouring the impugned order, has prayed for dismissal of the civil revision in hand by maintaining that no illegality or irregularity and wrong exercise of jurisdiction has been committed by learned Trial Court, rather law on the subject has been followed in proper way Relies on Emperor v. Abdul Hakim AIR 1931 Lahore 337, Syed Bunyad Ali Shah and 5 others v. Mst. Bibi Khairun-Nisa and another 1981 CLC 121 [S.C. (AJ&K)], Raja Muhammad Afzal Khan v. Ch. Manzoor Elahi and 6 others PLD 1975 Lahore 1276 and Zila Council, Sargodha v. Haji Irshad Ahmad 1994 CLC 79 Lahore.
4. Heard.
5. There is no cavil to the proposition that a counsel representing party for all practical purposes; stamps purchased in his name and affixed on plaint deemed to have been purchased by party and affixed on his behalf; in this regard reliance is placed on Syed Bunyad Ali Shah and 3 others v.
Mst. Bibi Kbair-un-Nisa and another 1981 CLC 121 [S.C. (AJ & K)]. Moreover, in Stamp Law and Procedure by Sahib Sing Bulsingh Shahani, Accountant of Store-Keeper Officer of the Superintendent of Stamps. Karachi. First Edition, 1937, it has been elaborated that, The writing of the name of the purchaser and other particulars on the back of a stamp is required in the case of impressed stamps by the Rules for the sale of stamps. The rules go no further than to require endorsement to be made by the Stamp Vendor and there is no provision of the Act or of any Rule made under them that a stamp so endorsed may only be used by or on behalf of the person whose name is so endorsed. The purchase of the Stamp rules requiring the endorsement seems merely the provision of a means of ascertaining when, where and by whom a stamp has been purchased but there is nothing to prevent a impressed stamp purchased by one person being used by some other person Adhesive Court-Fee stamps as well as impressed stamps used under the General Stamp Act or Court-Fees Act can, therefore, legally be used by persons other than whose names they bear as purchasers.' In this regard safer reliance can also be placed on Raja Muhammad Afzal Khan's case (PLD 1975 Lahore 1276). In the present case, the Court-fee stamps were duly returned by order of Court of competent jurisdiction and same were gifted by the person, who purchased the Court-fee stamps, to his counsel and in view of above citations, the same can be used in other suit, because the main requirement of law is to deposit the Court-fee with the Govt. Treasury and the respondent/plaintiff cannot be burdened with further liability to purchase fresh court-fee stamp unless it is established by the petitioner that the said Court-fee stamp, deposited by the respondent/plaintiff, had been utilized for any other purpose or case; in this regard reliance is placed on Zila Council, Sargodha's case 1994 CLC 79 Lahore.
6. The above discussion ends with the observation that the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality, irregularity or wrong exercise, of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order, therefore, same does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, which otherwise has a limited scope. Resultantly, the instant civil revision being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed. Civil revision .