LHC: appeal valid despite court-fee deficiency

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has held that where an appeal is instituted within limitation, the absence or deficiency of court-fee does not invalidate its presentation and the right of action or appeal stands preserved.

The court said payment of court-fee is a matter between the state and the suitor; it does not affect the jurisdiction of a court or the adversary’s substantive rights.

The court; therefore, said the deficiency of court fee is curable under Sections 148 and 149 of the Civil Procedure Code (Code) and the payment, when made, would relate back to the date of filing, the court held.

The court passed this order in a petition of Shamim Bibi challenging the decision of a sessions court, which instead of requiring the appellant to supply the deficiency, dismissed the appeal holding that payment of court-fee beyond limitation could not be related back to the original date of filing.

The court observed that filing within limitation preserves the right of appeal, non-affixation of court-fee at the initial stage is a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect.

The objective of court-fee law is fiscal, not penal, procedural rules must advance justice rather than defeat it, the court added.

The court said dismissal of an appeal on limitation is justified only when the filing itself was belated or the omission deliberate and contumacious.

The court observed that in the present matter, the appeal was filed within limitation and the deficiency of court-fee was procedural and not accompanied by any element of bad faith or deliberate delay.

The appellate court must, at least once, exercise discretion under Section 149 of the Code to allow payment of deficient court-fee within a reasonable and specific time, the court added.

The court said, where an appellant, despite having been granted specific time and opportunity to affix the requisite court-fee, wilfully defaults or remains indifferent to compliance, the court justifiably declines indulgence.

The court said the appellate court’s order suffers from a jurisdictional error by treating a curable irregularity as a fatal defect and amounts to a refusal to exercise discretion vested by law.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025