2007 PLP 1319 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.

Instant constitutional petition challenged the order dated 7-4-2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi Baha-ud-Din, to be declared illegal, A void and of no legal consequence, whereby petitioner's plaint was rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.

2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that the petitioner on 14-9-2002 filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against the sale of suit-land dated 24-6-2002 vide registered sale-deed. The learned Civil Judge, who was seized of the suit directed the petitioner to make good the deficiency in court-fee according to chart of net profit of Rs.5,459 by 17-3-2003. The petitioner on the last day i.e. on 17-3-2003 filed an application under sections 148, 149 and 151, C.P.C., which was allowed and time for deposit of deficiency in court-fee was extended up to 27-3-2003.

3. The respondents being aggrieved of the extension of time by the trial Court vide order dated 17-3-2003 filed a revision petition before the learned Additional District Judge, whereby they succeeded as their revision petition was accepted and plaint of the petitioner was rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., vide revisional judgment dated 7-4-2004. The petitioner, thereafter, filed instant constitutional petition with the relief noted above and respondents in response to notice have appeared and were represented through their counsel.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undisputedly, the petitioner was initially required to make good the deficiency in court-fee after due determination and by specifying the amount of deficient court-fee before 17-3-2003. She failed to do the needful within this period and on the last day moved an application for extension of time on the ground that she got the chart of net profit recalculated from a retired Patwari and according to his calculation court-fee worked out by the trial Court was not correct, resulting in her failure to comply with the orders. The petitioner did not name the retired Patwari from whom she got the calculation, she did not produce the calculation made by the un named Patwari and did not mention in her application what was the difference between the calculation done by his Patwari and the Court. The stance of the petitioner could not be termed as sufficient cause for extension of time under sections 148, 149 and 151, C.P.C. especially when the same ,was not supported by any documentary proof. Interim orders of the trial Court revealed that the petitioner was repeatedly required to produce a chart of net profit when she ultimately produced on 5-3-2003 with worked out net profit of Rs.4,851.75. The learned trial Judge by multiplying the net profit shown by the petitioner's own chart of net profit by 15 times, as per provisions of Court Fees Act, worked out deficient court-fee of Rs.5,459 in presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Neither the petitioner nor her counsel raised any objection to the calculation made by the trial Court in their presence and they remained silent till the next date of hearing i.e. 17-3-2003 when abruptly application under discussion was filed and was accepted without calling upon the respondents to file any reply, thereto. The order granting extension of time, has furnished no reason of any kind and was to the effect "application is accepted".

6. Under law, on account of lapse of the petitioner to make good the deficiency in court-fee, within time fixed by the trial Court, valuable rights have accrued to the respondents which could not be taken away without furnishing sufficient cause and without providing an opportunity of filing c reply or hearing them. I have already noted that ground urged by the petitioner for extension of time was not sufficient cause within the meaning of section 148, C.P.C., hence, her application could not have been accepted through a sketchy/unreasoned order depriving the respondents of their rights which have accrued to them on account of petitioner's default after order of extension of time by the trial Court, therefore, respondents were left with no other alternative except to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. where the lis was correctly concluded.

7. For the reasons noted above, respondent No.1 committed no illegality/ irregularity amenable to constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Even otherwise a lawful decision within the ambit of conferred jurisdiction cannot be interfered on this petition which being devoid of any merit is dismissed, with no order as to costs. H.B.T./R-1/L Petition dismissed.