P L D 1966 W (PLP)

(22) Nawabzada Muhammad Umar Khan v. Khitab (Revision No. 59 of 1964‑65). (23) Nawabzada Muhammad Umar Khan v. Shah Baz Gul (Revision No. 60 of 1964‑65). (24) Nawabzada Muhammad Umar Khan v. Bakhat Ali (Revision No. 61 of 1964‑65). (25) Kh. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Juma Khan (Revision No. 15 of 1964‑65). (26) Kh. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v, Agha Jan (Revision No. 16 of 1964‑65). (27) Kh. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Munawar'(Revision No. 17 of 1964‑65). (28) Ah. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Gul Jan (Revision No. 18 of 1964‑65). (29) Ah. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Khan Muhammad (Revision No. 19 of 1964‑65). (30) Kh. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. (1) Abbas and (2) Hakim (Revision No. 20 of 1964‑65). . (31) Kh. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Sher Muhammad (Revision No. 21 of 1964‑65). (32) Kh. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Sher Ali (Revision No. 22 of 1964‑65). (33) Ah. Muhammad Khan ' (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Anwar, Agha Jan, Muhammad Umar (Revision No. 23 of 1964‑65). (34) Kh. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Yousuf (Revision No. 24 of 1964‑65). (35) Kh Muhammad Khan (minor) c/.o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Dilawar (Revision No. 25 of 1964‑65). (36) Kh. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Lali (Revision No. 26 of 1964‑65). (37) Ah. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Shahbaz (Revision No: 27 of 1964‑65). (38) Ah. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Tura Baz (Revision No. 28 of 1964‑65). (39) Ah. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Rasul Shah (Revision No. 29 of 1964‑65). (40) Ah. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Shahbaz, Azim (Revision No. 30 of 1964‑65). (41) Ah. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Muhammad Tor Gul (Revision No. 31 of 1964‑65). (42) Kh. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Sher Zaman (Revision No. 32 of 1964‑65). (43) Kh. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Taj Muhammad (Revision No. 33 of 1964‑65). (44) Kh. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Sultan Muhammad (Revision No. 34 of 1964‑65). (45) Ah. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Agha Jan (Revision No. 35 of 1964‑65). (46) Kh. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Yousaf, Muhammad Umar and Agha Jan (Revision No. 36 of 1964‑65). (47) Ah. Muhammad Khan (minor) c/o N. Muhammad Umar Khan v. Ghulam Muhammad (Revision No. 37 of 1964‑65). These 47 second revisions have been filed against an order dated the 3rd of June 1965, passed by the Additional Commis sioner (Revenue), Peshawar, whereby the 46 first revisions preferred by the respondents were accepted and the cases were remanded to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. The facts of the case are that the petitioners, who are landlords, served notices of ejectment on the respondents who are tenants. The respondents instituted suits for contesting their liability for ejectment and affixed Court‑fee of Re. 1 on each plaint. On the objection raised by the landlords, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade dismissed the suits on account of the deficiency in the Court‑fee stamps. The respondents went in appeal to the Collector, who dismissed the appeals. The respondents (tenant) then went in revision to the Additional Commissioner, who accepted them and remanded the case. After remand, the respondents were asked to make up the deficiency in Court‑fee stamps, but they failed to do so and the suits were again dismissed. They then went in appeal to the Collector, but the appeals were dismissed. Revisions were filed before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) who accepted them and passed the order mentioned above. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the respondents were fully aware of the amount for which they had to affix the Court‑fee stamps. I, however, find that although the deficiency was made up before the learned Additional Commissioner, the Assistant Collector did not specifically mention the amount for which the deficiency had to be made up. This was the consideration by which the learned Additional Commissioner was influenced. If the Assistant Collector had mentioned the amount and the respondents then failed to carry out his order, the dismissal of the suits would have been justified. I, however, find that litigation between the parties have been going on since 1963. It is now stated before me that from 1960‑61 the respondents have not been paying any rent to the petitioners (Landlords). It is not desirable that on the one hand the respondents should contest ejectment and on the other fail to pay the rent to the landlords. On behalf of the respondents it has been argued that they have already deposited the amount due to the landlords in the treasury as rent from 1960 to 1964‑

65. In case they have already done so, the question of further deposit will not arise and the Assistant Collector 1st Grade will have to satisfy himself first that the direction to deposit arrears of rent for 1960‑65 in the treasury has been complied with before taking up the question of making up the deficiency in the Court‑fee stamps. In these circumstances, while I accept' the revisions, I direct that the respondents should be allowed to make up the deficiency in the Court‑fee stamps by the Assistant Collector. But this permission will be given only after the direction mentioned above had been fully complied with and the Assistant Collector 1st Grade had satisfied himself about the compliance. In case the respondents fail to carry out the orders given above, the deficiency in the Court‑fee stamps will not be allowed to be made up. K. M. A. Case remanded.