1993 PLP 1027 (CLC)

Civil Revision by the plaintiffs arose from a pre‑emption suit. It was decreed by the trial Court, in favour of the plaintiffs, on 8‑3‑1980. Pre‑emption price was fixed at Rs.17,

500. It was required to be deposited before 3‑5‑1980, by the decree of the trial Court. 1n appeal, this decision was reversed, and, pre emption suit dismissed on 23‑5‑1981, by the learner‑ Additional District Judge, Sargodha on short score of delayed payment of court‑fee on the plaint. Thereupon, a civil revision was preferred by the plaintiffs. It was admitted on 6‑4‑1982 to examine the effect of delayed payment of court‑fee on the decision of the pre‑emption suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Short facts for the decision of the Civil revision are: 11 Kanals, 10 Marlas of land at village Kot Kamboh. in Tehsil Shahpur of District, Sargodha was owned by Bakhsha son of Channan Din. By a sale‑deed. registered on 22‑6‑1977, Bakhsha sold his above land to Ghulam Muhammad for a sum of Rs.17,

500. Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Nawaz, as real brothers of the vendor, and, co‑owners of the land with him claimed pre‑emotion in respect of the above sale Pre-emption suit was instituted by them on 1-6-1978. Para. 6 of the plaint assessed the value for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs.1,

100. Since the required amount of court-fee stamps were not available, adhesive court-fee stamps of the value of Rs.2.25 were affixed upon the face of the plaint. It was averred that deficiency in the payment of court-fee shall be made good. On 3-6-1978, suit was registered and the plaintiffs were called upon to have prepared Fard-Khalis Munafa till, 3-7-1978 for filing of it in the trial Court. Since the statement of annual net profits could not be prepared till the due date, plaintiffs requested for further time. This time the trial Court gave them till 31-7-1978. On the above date of hearing, plaintiffs submitted the statement of annual net profits and paid court-fee in the sum of Rs.539.60. Thereupon, the trial Court recorded the following order on its file:-- Fard Khalis Munafa has been filed and in accordance therewith deficiency of court-fee to the tune of Rs.539.60 too has been made good. In para. No.6 of the plaint valuation of the suit may, therefore, be corrected and summons issued to the defendant for 11-10-1978, on payment of process fee within two days. A sum of Rs.35,00 be deposited before the said date by way of Zar-i-Panjam. On 13-12-1978, vendee-defendant submitted an application for rejection of the plaint of the pre-emption suit under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. for delayed payment of court-fee for a pre-emption suit. Plaintiffs submitted their reply and resisted the application. On 3-6-1979, the trial Court rejected the application, in a vernacular order. It was observed that the court-fee had already been paid in accordance with the terms of statement of annual net profits, in obedience to the order of the Court. Thereafter, the vendee submitted his written statement and contested the pre-emption suit. Apart from controverting the averments in the plaint of the pre-emption suit, an objection as to the incorrect valuation for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was reiterated on 23-6-1979. The trial Court framed as many as eight issues inclusive of relief. Issues contained also an objection about the erroneous valuation also. Parties gave evidence in support of the above issues. On 8-3-1980; the trial Court decreed the pre-emption suit. In appeal, only point agitated was about the decision on issue No.1. It reads as:-- "Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.? OPP. Obviously, the issue was relatable to late payment of court-fee as indicated above. Learned appellate Judge made a mountain out of a mole-hill and allowing the appeal, dismissed the pre-emption suit on this score alone. Neither, the superior right of pre-emption was in dispute nor the price payable for the land. Plea of estoppel was also not established. In verity, no other point, except the one relating to delayed payment of court-fee was urged and taken note of in the Court below. It is a settled statement that without a prior determination of the amount of court-fee payable on a document and allowing a reasonable opportunity for its payment, neither the plaint could be rejected, nor, the appeal dismissed. Question of limitation was not at all involved in the process. Further, there was neither negligence nor contumacy in the matter of payment of court-fee by the plaintiffs. Even after expiry of time fixed, the Court was empowered to further extend the time for payment of court-fee. It was really a fiscal matter between a suitor and the State. It did not arm an adversary with a weapon for striking his opponent out of Court. Recently, the Courts have adopted a more favourable view on the question of court-fee payable on documents used in the Courts. The State had already received its share of revenue from the plaintiffs for rendering justice to them.. Defendant was in no way prejudiced in the act of the trial Court giving time for payment of court-fee to the plaintiffs. No other point was urged and the one agitated here was found favourable to the plaintiffs. In view of the foregoing discussion, Civil Revision is allowed, impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge dated 23-5-1981 are set aside and those of the learned trial Court restored to operate in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs in this Court. Original records be returned. H.B.T./S-252/L Revision allowed.