105/2010 Suit SYED IMDAD HUSSAIN SHAH (Plaintiff) V/S REHMAT KHAN VARDAG & ORS. (Defendant)

105/2010 Suit SYED IMDAD HUSSAIN SHAH (Plaintiff) V/S REHMAT KHAN VARDAG & ORS. (Defendant) Sindh High Court

Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author) Order Date: 04-JUN-12

--S. 13---Application for return of court-fee---Compromise between the parties after about two months of filing the suit---Contention of the plaintiff was that since the matter had been compromised between the parties and no issues had been framed as such, they were entitled for return of the court-fee, and that the suit was filed in the month of January, 2010 and was disposed of as compromised in March, 2010, therefore, the court had only consumed two months, on basis of which the plaintiff was entitled for the return of the court-fee---Validity---Suit in question was filed on 25-10-2010, whereafter notices and summonses were issued---On 27-10-2010 the bailiff's report was returned with the endorsement that one of the defendant's had refused to receive notice and as such bailable warrants were issued on 27-10-2010---On 29-10-2010 the plaintiff was able to obtain an order by which the court directed the Judicial Magistrate to take over possession of the containers belonging to the plaintiff, which had been allegedly unauthorizedly retained by the defendants and prepare an inventory and park the said containers in the court premises---On 8-2-2010 it was ordered that the defendants might file written statements and counter affidavits within four days with advance copy to the plaintiffs who in turn might file a copy of the rejoinder, whereafter the matter was adjourned---Plaintiff moved an urgent application on 29-2-2010, and as such the matter was heard on three subsequent dates, ending in a compromise as appearing in the order dated 4-3-2010---Court had spent its valuable time in examining the case, in hearing the arguments and in deliberation, therefore, it could not be said that the court had not consumed its valuable time---Plaintiff had achieved what he could through his prayer in the plaint---Decree in terms of the order dated 4-3-2010 was passed by the High Court whereby the rights of the parties were determined---Relevant factors which went against the contentions of the plaintiff were the initiation of the proceedings by the court, hearing of the matter and the benefit derived by the party-- Application for return of court-fee was dismissed, in circumstances