1984 PLP 1557 (CLC)

‑‑Ss. 4, 21, 27 & 30‑Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Ss. 9 & 10‑‑ Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts. 10 & 120‑Civil Procedure Code (V Of 1908) O. VII, r. I1‑Non‑making up of deficiency in court‑fees within time ‑‑ Effect ‑ Question of limitation would arise only if after determining valuation for purpose of court -fees plaint was returned and time allowed for fresh presenta tion of same after making up deficiency in court‑fees and if same was not re-filed within specified time‑Failure to show that trial Court after determination of "proper" court‑fees had allowed time for fresh presentation and that plaintiff failed to do so within specified period ‑ Rejection of plaint or dismissal of suit in circumstances, held, was not justified ‑ Appellate Court rightly allowed plaintiff to make up deficiency in court‑fees after adjudg ing same. Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan and others P L D 1984 S C 157 applicable. Mst. Parveen v. Mst. Jamshaida Belum and another P L D 1983 S C 227 ref. This second appeal calls into question the judgment and decree, dated 17th March, 1484 gassed by the learned Additional District Judge‑II, Muzaffargarh whereby he allowed The respondents to make up deficiency of court‑fee and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, dated 6th July, 1982.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that Wahid Bakhsh etc. respondents filed a suit for pre‑emption in respect of land mentioned in the plaint. Amir Bakhsh petitioner resisted the suit on several grounds. The trial Court held the suit to be barred by time and further that the respondents had failed to make up the deficiency in the court‑fee despite opportunities being given for the purpose and in view of their contumacious conduct in this behalf rejected the plaint.

3. The learned Additional District Judge, relying upon Shahana Khan v. Aulia Khan and others (P L D 1984 S C 157) and Mst. Parveen v. Mst. .7amshaida Begum and another (P L D 1983 S C 227) reversed the findings of the Court below on the issue and effect of not making up the deficiency in the court‑fee within time. The learned Additional District Judge observed that the question of limitation would arise only if after determining the valuation for the purpose of court‑fee the plaint was returned and time allowed for fresh presentation of the same after making up the deficiency in the court‑fee and if the same was not refiled within the specified time. He allowed the respondent to make up the deficiency in the court‑fee by l7th April, 1984. Hence this second appeal.

4. It is contended that the respondents has been granted indulgence by the trial Court for full eight years but they continued to put hurdles and obstacles and wilfully failed to make up deficiency in the court‑fee and further that they had put up obstinate resistance to the plea raised by the appellant about the non‑payment of court‑fee and struck up to the stand that the court‑fee fixed by them was correct.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show that the trial Court had determined 'proper' court‑fee and had allowed time to the respondents for fresh presentation and that they had failed to do so within the specified period.

6. In these circumstances it was not justified to reject the plaint o dismiss the suit. The proposition discussed in Shahana Khan v. Aulia Khan and others is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned Additional District Judge, was, therefore, justified to allow the respondents to make up the deficiency in the court‑fee after adjudging the same.

7. Finding no illegality in the order of the learned Additional District Judge, I dismiss the appeal in limine. M. Z. M. Appeal dismissed.