1980 PLP 672 (SCMR)

Syed Afzal Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing : 6th February, 1980. KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑This order will dispose of four petitions bearing No. C. P. S. L. A. Nos. 496/79, 497/79, 498/79 and 499/79,

2. The facts of these cases are few and simple. The petitioners filed four suits to pre‑empt the sales mentioned therein. Their plaints were rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. on the ground that they had not made good the requisite deficiency of court‑fee, despite the opportunity having been given to them to do the needful. The petitioners filed appeals, which were accepted by the learned District Judge by order dated 14th November, 1975, whereby he remanded the cases to the learned trial Court to make investigation regarding valuation for the purposes of court‑fees and then proceed with the matter in accordance with the law afresh. The vendees filed four appeals in the High Court, which were accepted on 13th March, 1979. The High Court modified the order of the learned District Judge and issued a direction to the learned trial Court to enquire whether the plaintiffs had acted with due diligence and in good faith in fixing the valuation at 15 times of the annual net profits. It was further directed that it should be found out whether the petitioners had moved the revenue authorities concerned for obtaining the proper excerpts in time etc. for the purpose of fixing the annual net profits of the land. A further direction issued was to see whether the plaintiffs/ petitioners were negligent in all these matters. It was indicated that after attending to all these aspects the Court would be competent to proceed under Order VII, rule II if the facts so warranted.

4. The petitioners have come up in petitions for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid orders of the High Court.

5. We have heard the learned counsel at length but he could not satisfy us as to what was the legal error in the orders of the High Court. Learned counsel tried to argue that the order for depositing the court‑fees at such a late stage of the case where it stood at the relevant time could not have been passed. The contention has no merit. Once the point of deficiency of the court‑fees had been taken up by the Court it had every jurisdiction to deal with the same in accordance with law on the subject. Learned counsel should have rather availed of the opportunity which had been given by the High Court to make out a case for condonation of delay or extension of time in the payment of court‑fees instead of making grievances about it in the form of these petitions. The orders of the High Court are in accordance with law, and even otherwise quite just and fair inasmuch they purport to safeguard rights of both the contesting parties and leave ample scope for them to present and prove their respective pleas on the subject.

6. In our opinion this is not a fit case for grant of leave. The petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.