1979 PLP 40(2) (CLC)

Muhammad Yusuf Arain for Appellant. Yusuf Farooq for Respondent No.

1. Dates of hearing : 17th and 18th April 1979. This revision petition is directed against an order of Ch. Hasan Nawaz District Judge, Sheikhupura dated 12th February 1978, dismissing the pet1tioner's appeal, and affirming the order of the trial Court whereby the petitioner's plaint in a pre-emption suit was rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for pre emption against the respondents. On 9th September 1976, the petitioner was directed to make up the deficiency in court-fee after obtaining a state ment of net-profits from the Revenue authorities. He was granted several opportunities but he did not comply with the order. On 25th July 1977 he was again directed to make up the deficiency by 3rd October 1977 but he failed to do so. Since the petitioner did not produce any statement of net profits, although he had been given more than a year's time to do so, the learned trial Judge rejected his plaint under Order VII, rule

11. C. P. C. The learned District Judge dismissed the respondents' appeal on the ground that there was no justification for giving any further extension. The Court also observed that the plaintiff apparently had not made any serious efforts to obtain the requisite statement, and that the default under the circum stances seemed wilfully. The Court also found that there was no merit in the plea that the petitioner could not obtain the statement of net-profits because the patwari had been transferred. This revision petition was admitted on the submission that the annual net-profits arising from the land in dispute amounted to Rs. 4.27 only, and that the petitioner having paid court-fee on Rs. 100 had actually paid court-fee in excess and as such his plaint could not be rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. In this connection learned counsel has placed on record a statement of net profits which shows that the annual net-profits for the one kanal of land which is in dispute came to Rs. 14.87. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the entire khasra number measures 3 kanals and 11 marlas these net-profits had to be multiplied by 20/71 to arrive at the figure of Rs. 4.2,

7. Learned counsel for the respondents has also produced a state ment of one year's net-profits for the entire khasra number in which cultivat ed land including khasra measures 3 kanals the net-profits according to the statement, amount to Rs. 99.52. It is indeed this figure which can be multiplied by 20/71 to calculate the net-profits for the one kanal of land which is in dispute. The statement produced by the petitioner is only for one kanal and the question of further dividing the net-profits does not arise. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that 15 times the annual net profits, no matter from which statement they may be calculated, come to less than Rs. 100 the amount on which court-fee had been paid.

3. The trial Court had given ample opportunity to the petitioner to produce the statement of annual net-profits and to amend the valuation of suit for the purpose of court-fee accordingly. The petitioner having failed to avail of that opportunity, his plaint had to be rejected. There is no illegality or improprietary in the order that has been passed by the trial Court or the lower appellate Court, and as such no interference in revision is called for.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the Court should have itself directed an inquiry for calculating the value of the suit for purpose of' court-fee. There is no merit in this submission. It was the duty of the petitioner to have produced a copy of the statement of net profits, and to have valued the suit accordingly. Since the petitioner had failed to do so despite the fact that the Court had required him to do so, and despite having been allowed sufficient time for the purpose, his plaint was rightly rejected. There is no merit in this revision petition. which accordingly is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.