Valuation in Partition suit—
For the purpose of court's jurisdiction the valuation of a partition suit where the plaintiff is in possession will be the same as the value of the plaintiffs share in the entire property. Ajiruddin Vs. Rahman Fakir. (1911) 13 DLR (SC) 19.

Provisions for payment of deficit Court fee—
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—
Section 149— Power of court to enlarge time to deposit deficit court fee—
Order 7 rule 11(d)— Proviso prescribing time not exceeding 21 days for filing deficit court fee is not mandatory—
Proviso to rule 11(d) of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribing time limit not exceeding 21 days for depositing deficit court fee is not mandatory but directory in nature whereby the power of the court to enlarge time to make payment of deficit court fee has not been curtailed. When the plaintiff paid deficit court fee within the time allowed by the court beyond 21 days the plaint of the suit cannot be rejected on the ground that the deficit court fee is paid bey 21 days.
Begum Sultana Mazid and others Syedul Islam, 10 MLR (2005) (AD) 186

Partition suit—Minor ousted from possession—His title not extinguished till the lapse of three years after attainment of majority even though 12 years passed after dispossession—Suit for partition filed after. one year of attainment of majority—Suit competent without a prayer for declaration of title—Only advalorem court-fees is to be paid—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 6 and 28, Art. 144. Sanjib Kumar Bose and another Vs. Syed Sharnsuddih and anr.; 1 BLD (AD)311

Section 7 (iv) (C) 8C and Article 17(iii) of schedule II
Declaration for getting back possession from Receiver—Property attached under section 145 Cr.P. Code and receiver appointed—Suit for declaration that plaintiff was in possession till taking over of possession by the receiver and that he was entitled to get back possession—Possession of receiver is equivalent to possession by the true owner— Payment of advalorem court-fees not required—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42—Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898). S.145 Miah A.M. Noor Vs. Abu Naser Ahmed; 2BLD (AD) 97

Advalorem fee to be paid for cancellation of document-
In a suit for cancellation of document advalorem Court fee shall have to be paid. Sufia Khanom Vs. Faizunnessa. 39 DLR (AD) 46.

For cancellation of document advalorem court fee payable—
In a suit for cancellation of a deed plaintiff shall have to pay advalorem court fee. 39 DLR (AD) 46.

Held: we are of the view that the trial court shall be at liberty to consider the matter of valuation of the suit property at the time of trial of the suit and shall pass necessary orders as deemed fit according to law as to payment of Court fees, if any by the plaintiff. Md. Saimuddin Vs. Amjad Ali & Ors 16 BLT (AD) 74. ....View Full Judgment

The parties are entitled to refund of the Court fees if it is found that the apparatus of the Court and its process have not been used for the cause for which the parties have taken recourse to the proceedings of the Court. This underlining principle of the Court Fees Act as well as the provisions under sub-Section (11) of Section 89A of the Code have also been recognized and affirmed in the cases as referred to by Mr. Hannan, in particular the case of Bhola v. Sardar Muhammad, PLD 1976 Lahore 1268. ...CS Crushing Ind. Ltd Vs. M.V. TRITON SEAGULL & ors, (Civil), 2 SCOB [2015] HCD 58 ....View Full Judgment

Court Fees—Levy of—Whether after the substitution of schedule I of the Court Fees Act in 1981 provision of section 35A of the Court Fees Act providing for reducing or increasing by 15% of the advalorem court fees is applicable—Section 35A is very much there in the statute and its provision is not inconsistent with Schedule I of 1981—It must be acted upon unless it is found that it has been repealed by necessary implication—But it is a settled law that the Court shall presume against repeal of a statute by necessary implication—If section 35A is read along with all the relevant schedules starting from 1960 till 1981 it will be clear that the intention of the legislature was to super impose the provision of section 35A upon the amounts of advalorem court fee as shown in the schedule which may be amended from time to time—
Substitution of one law for another clearly amounts to repeal followed by re-enactment—Section 35A will run along with the schedule as re-enacted unless any different provision is expressly made in the statute. Sonali Bank, Local Office, Dhaka Vs. Gazi Abdur Rashid and others; 7 BLD (AD)269

Interpretation of statute—Repeal and reenactment—Whether by amendment and substitution of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act in 1981 there is repeal and reenactment— Whether section 8(1) of the General Clauses act will apply—By Finance Act of 1981 Schedule I of Court Fees Act has been amended and substituted in place of old schedule—Legally it amounts to the same thing as saying that the old schedule has been repealed and re-enacted with modification—Section 35A of the Court Fees Act is included and contemplated within the meaning of any other enactment’—In the instant.case Finance Act of 198 1 or any other law does not speak of any different intention that reference to schedule I in section 35A shall not be construed as reference to the re-enacted schedule lof 1981. Sonali Bank, Local office, Dhaka Vs.Gazi Abdur Rashid and others; 7 BLD (AD)269