1989 PLP 2080 (CLC)

This revision petition filed by the Government of N.‑W.F.P. arises out of the judgment of learned District Judge, Mardan dated 16‑1‑1985 by which he dismissed the Government's appeal, following the ratio of PLD 1983 Karachi 537, as the court‑fee due for the appeal had not been paid and in the meanwhile, the appeal had become barred by time.

2. The facts briefly are that Gul Hayat and another, respondents herein, sued the Government N.‑W.F.P. through Collector, Mardan, and XEN Irrigation, Swabi for recovery of Rs.500 or whatever be found due on taking accounts. A sum of Rs.38,239.34 turned out to be due and a decree for its recovery was finally passed in the suit. The Government preferred an appeal without payment of court‑fee and as afore‑stated the learned District Judge held the appeal to be incompetent technically on the basis of PLD 1983 Karachi 537, and dismissed it with costs. Hence this revision petition.

3. The sole point here considered was if the appellate Court could dismiss the appeal for non‑payment of court‑fee without first directing the appellant to make payment. No direction as such appears to have been given to the appellant, it cannot be denied. But the suit having been decreed for a specific amount it should have been known to the appellants what stamps they had to provide for court‑fee for the appeal. Apparently, the decretal amount was rupees twenty five thousand and the appeal had to be stamped accordingly. No confusion should have therefore, arisen to think if stamp was or was not payable for the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants (Advocate General) has contended that the counsel was misled, in not filing court‑fee when the appeal was filed, by the fact the amount sought to be recovered had been shown in the relevant copies as Rs.500 on which no court‑fee requires to be fixed. This is true but the judgment, a copy of which was filed‑with the appeal, clearly indicated the amount of decree to be Rs.38,239.34. For the same court‑fee was payable. It was not paid and when the lapse was detected it was fairly late and even if the appellants had supplied the stamps, they could not have got out of the bar of limitation. Rightly, therefore, the learned appellate Court had rejected the appeal on account of non payment of court‑fee.

4. That apart, even for the revision petition no court‑fee has been paid. At the same rate it was here due to be paid alongwith the revision petition when it was filed in the year 1985. Now the flaw cannot be cured and the same result has to follow. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed both for the reason that the order impugned is unexceptionable and the court‑fee here due has also not been paid. No order as to costs. A.A./825/P Revision dismissed.