1986 PLP 841 (CLC)

Ch. Abdur Rashid Gujjar for Petitioners. Mian Abdus Sattar Najam for Respondents. This Revision is directed against the judgment /decree, dated 20‑3‑1985 of the learned Additional District Judge, Khushab arising out of the suit for pre‑emotion. He dismissed the first appeal agreeing with the trial Court that the petitioners /pre‑emptors had quite contumaciously failed to pay the requisite court‑fee within a long period of nine years.

2. The land in question measuring 560 Kanals sold on 20‑12‑1973 was sought to be pre‑emoted by the present suit instituted on 15‑5‑1974 paying quite an .....Naqsha Jhar Paidawar was appended to the plaint nor was any application made reserving a right to produce the same. The petitioners were specifically directed by an order, dated 27‑10‑1979 to furnish the produce index for the purpose of calculation of the proper court‑fee. Such a direction was repeated on 10‑11‑1979 but instead of complying with the same, the petitioners challenged those orders in a Revision which ultimately was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Khushab on 5‑9‑1982. The court‑fee worth Rs.15,000 was then filed by the petitioners of their own on 19‑1‑1983.

3. An objection was taken that non‑compliance of the orders, sated 27‑10‑1979 and 10‑11‑1979 was a stance of an added contumacy as already payment of paltry court‑fee of Rs.2.25 over a claim for such. A huge area of agricultural land was in itself no less than contumacy. The contention raised in reply that the time was taken in prosecuting a Revision petition against those orders was repelled as operation thereof was not suspended by the Court of revision.

4. The same contention has been reiterated in support of the Revision. Reliance is placed on Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another P L D 1984 S C 289 in urging that the Court was bound to calculate the court‑fee and then give time for making good the deficiency.

5. The petition was opposed by the respondents who were called at limine stage. They found support from the same authority for the view that where a pre‑emptor was guilty of contumacy in having deliberately failed to pay proper court‑fee at the time of filing the suit or even subsequently when time was granted to him, his plaint could be rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.

6. Keeping in view the indifference shown by the petitioners in having paid a nominal court‑fee of Rs.2.25 for such a huge suit and then failing to comply with not one but two orders of the Court for A filing the necessary material for calculating proper court‑fee showed nothing but deliberateness and contumacy on their part which would disentitle them to any indulgence. The rule enunciated at page 320 of the said authority squarely applied and the Courts below were right in refusing any more laxity to the petitioners.

7. There is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed in limine, of course, with costs as the respondents were heard. H . B . T . Revision petition dismissed.