04/05/2026
⚖️ PLD 2026 SC 53
👉 Province of Punjab vs Muhammad Chiragh and others
سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان
ججز: جسٹس شاہد وحید، جسٹس شاہد بلال حسن
حوالہ: PLD 2026 SC 53
فیصلہ: 22-08-2025
⚖️ 2. مقدمہ کا پس منظر (Background of the Case)
حکومت پنجاب نے زمین کے حوالے سے ڈگری کے خلاف اپیل دائر کی
اپیل میں court-fee کم ادا کی گئی
ڈسٹرکٹ کورٹ نے اپیل مسترد کر دی
ہائی کورٹ نے بھی اس فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا
سپریم کورٹ میں سوال اٹھا کہ کیا یہ مستردی قانونی تھی؟
📜 3. متعلقہ قانون (Relevant Law)
📖 Court Fees Act, 1870
دفعہ 25، 28 — کورٹ فیس کی ادائیگی
📖 ضابطہ دیوانی (C.P.C)
دفعہ 149 — کورٹ فیس کی کمی پوری کرنے کا اختیار
Order VII Rule 11(c) — plaint کی مستردی
Order XLI Rule 3 — اپیل پر اطلاق
📖 آئین پاکستان
آرٹیکل 10-A — منصفانہ ٹرائل کا حق
Posted by Legal Luminaries
🧾 4. مقدمہ کے حقائق (Facts of the Case)
زمین کی الاٹمنٹ کے بعد تنازع پیدا ہوا
مدعی نے specific performance کا دعویٰ جیت لیا
حکومت نے اپیل دائر کی مگر court-fee مکمل ادا نہ کی
عدالت نے کئی تاریخیں دیں مگر deficiency واضح نہ کی
بالآخر اپیل مسترد کر دی گئی
⚖️ 5. اہم قانونی سوالات (Legal Issues)
کیا court-fee کی کمی پر اپیل مسترد کی جا سکتی ہے؟
کیا عدالت کا فرض ہے کہ deficiency واضح کرے؟
کیا مناسب موقع دیے بغیر اپیل مسترد کرنا درست ہے؟
🏛️ 6. عدالت کے مشاہدات (Court Findings)
💰 Court-fee deficiency
❌ عدالت نے واضح رقم متعین نہیں کی
👉 یہ بنیادی قانونی تقاضا تھا
⚖️ عدالت کا فرض (Duty of Court)
✔ لازم ہے کہ:
deficiency کی exact رقم بتائے
مناسب وقت دے
📄 Procedure میں خرابی
❌ بار بار adjournments دی گئیں مگر رہنمائی نہ دی گئی
👉 اس سے انصاف متاثر ہوا
📜 Section 149 C.P.C
✔ عدالت کو اختیار ہے کہ:
بعد میں بھی court-fee مکمل کروائے
👉 document کو valid مانا جا سکتا ہے
⚖️ Fair Trial (Art. 10-A)
❌ petitioner کو fair trial سے محروم کیا گیا
🏛️ High Court کی غلطی
❌ اس اہم قانونی نکتے کو نظر انداز کیا
⚖️ 7. عدالت کا فیصلہ (Final Decision)
✔ سپریم کورٹ نے:
ہائی کورٹ اور ڈسٹرکٹ کورٹ کے فیصلے کالعدم قرار دیے
کیس واپس ڈسٹرکٹ جج کو بھیج دیا
ہدایت دی کہ:
court-fee کی exact رقم مقرر کرے
مناسب وقت دے
پھر کیس کا فیصلہ کرے
⭐ 8. اہم قانونی اصول (Key Legal Principles)
✔ Court-fee deficiency:
👉 پہلے exact رقم بتانا لازمی ہے
✔ Court کا فرض:
👉 موقع فراہم کیے بغیر مستردی غیر قانونی
✔ Section 149 C.P.C:
👉 بعد میں deficiency پوری کی جا سکتی ہے
✔ Appellate Court:
👉 trial court جیسی ذمہ داریاں رکھتی ہے
✔ Fair trial:
👉 procedural غلطی بھی fundamental right کو متاثر کر سکتی ہے
✔ Substantial justice:
👉 technicalities پر ترجیح دی جائے گی
✔ اصول:
👉 "قانون کا مقصد انصاف ہے، نہ کہ محض technicalities"
📚 9. حوالہ جات (Case Laws Relied Upon)
Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan (PLD 1984 SC 289)
Mst. Parveen v. Mst. Jamsheda Begum (PLD 1983 SC 227)
Yaqoob Khan v. Rasool Khan (1981 SCMR 155)
🔍 اہم قانونی نکتہ (Practical Insight)
👉 یہ کیس ایک اہم اصول واضح کرتا ہے:
court-fee کی کمی ایک procedural defect ہے،
جس کا مقصد انصاف کو روکنا نہیں ہونا چاہیے
👉 اہم نکتہ:
عدالت کا فرض ہے کہ رہنمائی دے، صرف سزا نہ دے
👉 بنیادی اصول:
"substantial justice ہمیشہ technical غلطیوں پر غالب رہتی ہے"
Posted by Legal Luminaries
PLD 2026 Supreme Court 53
Present: Shahid Waheed and Shahid Bilal Hassan, JJ
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through the District Collector, Bhakkar---Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD CHIRAGH and others---Respondents
Civil Petition No. 385-L of 2021. decided on 22nd August, 2025.
(On appeal against the judgment dated 03.12.2020 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.75892 of 2017).
(a) Court-fees Act (VII of 1870)---
Ss. 25 & 28---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 10-A & 185(3)---Deficiency in payment of court-fee---Inadequately stamped memorandum of appeal---Effect---Consequent rejection of appeal---Legality---Courts to allow rectification of deficiency in court-fees---Scope---Duty of Courts to ascertain precise amount of deficient court-fee and then grant a reasonable period to petitioner to remedy the deficiency---The Province of Punjab allotted 100 kanals of land to "A" under a tubewell scheme, and after his death, his heirs executed a general power of attorney in favour of "MH" who agreed to sell the land to respondent "MC"---When "MH" failed to honor the agreement, MC filed a suit for specific performance, which the Trial Court decreed in his favour---The Province challenged this decree through an appeal, but its counsel filed an inadequately stamped memorandum of appeal and, despite seeking repeated adjournments, failed to deposit the proper court-fees---Consequently, the District Court rejected the appeal, and the High Court, in revision, upheld that rejection---Therefore, the core issue before the Supreme Court for determination was as to "whether the rejection of the petitioner's first appeal due to insufficiently stamped court-fees was lawful"?---Held: When the memorandum of appeal was initially presented, the ministerial staff reported that court-fees was needed---However, the specific amount of the deficient court-fee was not indicated, leaving a crucial gap in the proceedings---The file was subsequently presented to the district judge, who, rather than determining the exact sum owed in court-fees, opted to adjourn the case at the petitioner's request to allow time to submit the required fee---In a bid to rectify the situation, the petitioner sought seven adjournments to address the fee deficiency---Despite these attempts, the petitioner failed to fulfil this requirement---As a result, the district judge ultimately rejected the memorandum of appeal---This procedural approach, characterized by an improper handling of the case, defeated substantial justice and fell short of the established principles of law---It was incumbent upon the district judge to first ascertain the precise amount of the deficient court-fee and subsequently grant a reasonable period for the petitioner to remedy this shortfall---This essential exercise was neglected, rendering the rejection of the memorandum of appeal invalid---Consequently, the petitioner was deprived of a fair trial, which is a right protected under Article 10-A of the Constitution---The significance of this oversight alone warranted a revision of the order that led to the rejection of the first appeal, however, the High Court overlooked this critical aspect when it dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 115, C.P.C.---So viewed, the order of the High Court was also illegal---Consequently, the High Court judgment along with the district judge's order was set aside---The case was referred back to the district judge, who was directed to determine the exact amount of the court-fee owed---After this assessment, the district judge was directed to provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to rectify any deficiencies in the payment of the court-fee and after granting that opportunity the district judge could proceed to adjudicate the matter according to the law---Present petition was converted into appeal and was allowed, in circumstances. [p. 63] G
(b) Court-fees Act (VII of 1870)---
----S.28---Collection of court-fees---Purpose and object---True object is to facilitate administration of justice while protecting State interests without undermining fairness or integrity of proceedings---Scope---The primary intention behind this legislation (Court-fees Act, 1870) is to ensure a steady stream of revenue that benefits the State rather than to empower litigants with a tool of technicality that could be used to burden their adversaries unjustly---This understanding underscores the importance of upholding justice and fairness within the legal system---Thus, the focus should remain on the true purpose of the Act, facilitating the administration of justice while safe guarding the interests of the State without compromising the integrity of legal proceedings. [p. 59] В
Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another PLD 1984 SC 289 and Sardar Muhammad Kazim Ziauddin Durrani and others v. Sardar Muhammad Asim Fakhuruddin Durrani 2001 SCMR 148 rel.
Banwari Lal v. Mahesh and others AIR 1918 PC 188 ref.
(c) Court-fees Act (VII of 1870)---
----Ss. 25, 26 & 28---Collection of court-fees by the State---Balancing the State's revenue interests with the imperatives of fairness and justice in legal proceedings---Scope and guiding principles---Discretion of Presiding Officer to allow subsequent proper stamping---Rectification in deficiency of court-fee---Procedure stated---According to section 25 of the Court-fees Act 1870, in conjunction with section 26 thereof, the collection of court-fees is mandated to be executed through the use of stamps--The legislation specifies that the stamps intended to signify the payment of these fees may be of impressed, adhesive, or a combination of both types---Moreover, section 28 of the Act 1870 stipulates that a document requiring a stamp will be deemed invalid unless it bears the appropriate markings indicating that the court-fee has been duly paid---However, the statute recognizes the possibility of human error; if a document is inadvertently accepted, filed, or utilized in any court without the necessary stamping, the presiding judge possesses the discretion to allow for its subsequent proper stamping---If the judge deems it appropriate to grant this allowance, once the document is correctly stamped, it and all related proceedings will be considered as valid as if the necessary stamping had been executed at the outset---These provisions impose a dual responsibility on the court, particularly when documents are not properly stamped---Firstly, the court must ascertain the exact amount of applicable court-fees---Secondly, it may provide the necessary timeframe for the party involved to remedy any deficiencies in the payment, ensuring both compliance with the law and the preservation of fairness in the legal process. [p. 60] C
(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----
S.149---Court-fees Act (VII of 1870), S.28---Deficiency in payment of court-fee---Rectification of deficiency---Party to be allowed to rectify the deficiency/shortfall---Scope---There exists an additional legal provision that facilitates the rectification of certain procedural deficiencies which is articulated in section 149 of C.P.C.---This section empowers the court to permit a party to remedy any shortcomings in the court-fees owed on various legal documents, including plaints, memorandum of appeal, and applications for the review of judgments, etc---Notably, this allowance extends even beyond the expiration of the statutory limitation period required for the submission of these documents---In essence, Section 149, C.P.C. provides a mechanism by which a flawed document can be retrospectively validated, provided that the deficiency in the court-fee is rectified with the leave of the court---. When one examines Section 28 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, in conjunction with Section 149, the law can be summarized as follows: (a) Ordinarily, a document that is insufficiently stamped is not to be received, filed, or recorded in a court; (b) When, however, an insufficiently stamped document is presented, the court has the authority to assess the precise amount of court-fees required and may grant the submitting party a reasonable timeframe to address the deficiency; (c) Should the party rectify the fee shortfall within the given time limit, the document is to be considered to have been presented and accepted on the original date of its filing; (d) If the deficiency is not remedied within the timeframe fixed, the document will be rendered invalid and without legal effect---It is important to emphasize a significant aspect of Section 28 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, along with Section 149, C.P.C.--These provisions do not obligate the Court to grant an extension of time for parties to address any deficiencies in court-fees---Instead, the authority to remedy such deficiencies lies within the Court's discretion, meaning that it cannot be assumed as an automatic right---However, it is essential to recognize that the pursuit of law fundamentally aims to deliver justice; it is not merely a series of rigid procedures but a pathway to achieving fair outcomes. (pp. 60, 61] D & E
Mst. Parveen v. Mst. Jamsheda Begum and another PLD 1983 SC 227; Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another PLD 1984 SC 289; Yaqoob Khan v. Rasool Khan and others 1981 SCMR 155; Ch. Nazir Ahmed v. Abdul Karim and another PLD 1990 SC 42 and Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Collector, Badin v. Haji Abdul Shakoor and others 1997 SCMR 919 rel.
(e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. VII, R.11(c), O. XLI, R. 3 & S. 107---Court-fees Act (VII of 1870), S.28---Deficiency in payment of court-fees---Rectification of deficiency---Scope---Duty of Court to determine the deficiency and provide opportunity to a party to rectify such deficiency---Duty of party to rectify the deficiency in the timeframe permitted by court---Order VII, Rule 11 (c) of C.P.C. stipulates that a plaint must be rejected if the relief sought is appropriately valued, yet the plaint is submitted on insufficiently stamped paper---In such instances, if the Court directs the plaintiff to provide the proper stamped paper within a specified timeframe and the plaintiff fails to comply, the plaintiff's claim stands to be rejected---It is also crucial to note that, under the provisions of section 107, C.P.C. in conjunction with Order XLI, Rule 3, C.P.C., the stipulations of Order VII, Rule 11(c), C.P.C. extend to the memorandum of appeal as well---Consequently, an appellate Court possesses the same authority and obligations as a Court of original jurisdiction when dealing with suits filed before it---Therefore, just as a Court of original jurisdiction is mandated by Order VII, Rule 11(c), C.P.C. to grant sufficient time for rectifying any court-feeds efficiencies in the plaint, an appellate Court is equally obliged to do the same concerning a memorandum of appeal---In this context, it is essential to emphasize that the question of discretion does not come into play---The appellate Court is required to first explicitly and accurately assess the amount of the Court-fee deficiency before proceeding further---Following this determination, the Court must grant a reasonable period for the appellant to rectify the deficiency---Thus, rejecting a memorandum of appeal is deemed unlawful without first adhering to these essential criteria---It is necessary to clarify that when a plaintiff or an appellant is granted time to rectify a deficiency in court-fees as stipulated under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., they must conform to this requirement within the given time frame---Should they fail to fulfil this obligation and subsequently request additional fime without providing a valid justification, it may be interpreted as an act of obstinacy and a deliberate disregard for the authority of the law---In such circumstances, the court may reasonably determine that the plaintiff or appellant forfeits his entitlement to any further extensions, as his actions reflect a refusal to comply with legal mandate. [p. 61] F
Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another PLD 1984 SC 289; Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Collector, Badin v. Haji Abdul Shakoor and others 1997 SCMR 919; Noor Muhammad and others v. Muhammad Sharif and others 1988 SCMR 1955; Malik Allah Dad deceased through his legal representatives and others v. Yasin and another 1990 SCMR 1638; Muhammad Hanif and others v. Muhammad and others PLD 1990 SC 859; Mukhi Chatromal and another v. Khubchand and 6 others 1993 SCMR 1113; Sardar Ahmed Yar Jang v. Sardar Noor Ahmed Khan PLD 1994 SC 688 and Zulfiqar Ali and others v. Mst. Sajida Begum 1995 SCMR 911 rel.
(Administration of justice---
----Substantial justice over technical compliance---Minor unintentional mistakes---Legal practitioners sometimes make unintentional mistakes when drafting pleadings or filing cases---Such errors, while regrettable, often result in outcomes that can attract sanctions or penalties---However, in the administration of justice, it is crucial to recognize that not all mistakes warrant strict punitive measures---To give life to the principle that wrong must not go unpunished, and that right must not go un enforced, a degree of leniency must be accorded to errors that do not stem from contumacy or intentional misconduct---By adopting a more forgiving approach towards certain minor mistakes, the judiciary can prevent the rigid application of rules from hindering the broader mission of justice delivery---This perspective is vital because the judiciary is respected not because it has the technical ability to legitimize unfairness, instead, its respect is rooted in its fundamental role as an arbiter of fairness, capable of identifying and rectifying injustices---The expectation that the judiciary must act to eliminate any form of injustice serves as a cornerstone of trust in the legal system---It is this ability to prioritize substantial justice over mere technical compliance that fortifies the integrity and efficacy of our legal processes. [p. 58] A
