Through this constitutional petition Amir A.I petitioner wants this Court to declare the order, dated 30-6-1986 of Civil Judge, Chishtian and order, dated 16-12-1986 of Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar, respondents 20 and 21, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. On 29-6-1986; Amir A.I filed suit for declaration to the effect that registered sale-deed dated 2-7- 1985 in favour of Muhammad Mushtaq and others, respondents/defendants being without consideration and having been obtained through fraud was illegal, void and ineffective on his rights in the Court of Civil Judge, Chishtian. On 30-6-1986, the learned, Civil Judge directed the plaintiff/petitioner to make up deficiency in the court-fee amounting to Rs. 12,375 on the ground that the suit was factually for the cancellation of sale---deed and as such the plaintiffs were required to pay court-fee on sale price mentioned therein. Feeling aggrieved thereby Amir A.I petitioner filed revision before the learned District Judge which was entrusted to Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar, who dismissed it on 16-12-1986. Hence this petition.
3. Relying on PLD 1949 Lahore 8 the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since it was/is a suit for declaration with consequential relief, therefore, the plaintiff could put his own valuation for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction as well. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on AIR 1939 Nagpur 50; AIR 1946 Nagpur 50 and PLD 1969 Dacca 357, to contend that the suit of the plaintiff is in substance a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed, so the Court was fully justified in requiring the plaintiff-petitioner to pay Court fee on the sale price. The learned counsel was also of the view that under section 7 (iv-A) of the Court Fee Act, the plaintiff- petitioner ought to have paid Court-fee.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to pursuade myself to agree with him. The relevant law be reproduced advantageously:- "Section 7(iv)(c) of Court Fees Act.
"(c) for a declaratory decree and consequential relief, to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed:"
Section 7(iv A) of Court Fees Act.
"(iv-A) For a declaratory decree regarding immovable property on the basis of alleged sale, etc. In suits for a declaratory decree with or without consequential relief as to right in or title to immovable property based on alleged sale, gift, exchange or mortgage- according to the value of the property."
Section 8 of Suits Valuation Act.
"8. Court-fee value and jurisdictional value to be the same in certain suits. Wherein suits other than these referred to in the Court-fees Act, 1870, section 7, paragraphs (v), (vi) and (ix), and paragraph (x), clause (d) Court-fees are payable ad valorem under the Court-fees Act, 1870, the value as determinable for the computation of Court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same."
From the examination of para. No.10 of the plaint which reads as under:-- It is very much obvious that the present suit is not a suit for declaration simpliciter but it is a suit for declaration and consequential relief. So it falls under sub-clause (c) of clause (iv) of section 7 of the Court Fees Act and as such it cannot be said that the suit in substance is a suit for the cancellation of the sale---deed. The examination of the relevant provisions of law reproduced above, makes it crystal clear that the plaintiff has an absolute discretion to put his own valuation on the relief claimed by him and the trial Court had no authority to question the valuation howsoever arbitrary it may be. In this view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the valuation of the purposes of court-fee fixed by the plaintiff---petitioner in the plaint. Needless to add that Court Fees Act is a fiscal enactment and has to be construed strictly. Any ambiguity or doubt arising out of its interpretation has to be resolved in favour of subject. The plaintiff-petitioner has not claimed declaration as to his title on the basis of any sale, gift, exchange, or mortgage, therefore, the newly-added section 7(iv-A) of Court Fees Act is not applicable to this suit. The Courts below while requiring the plaintiff-petitioner to pay Court-fee of Rs. 12,375 the learned trial Court has flouted the mandatory provisions of sub-clause (c) of clause (iv) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act. That being the position, there is no option but to declare the impugned orders of the Courts below to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
5. For what has been said above, the writ petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.