2008 PLP 1678 (CLC)

ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.

Through this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the judgment, dated 12-2-2008 passed by the learned Appellate Court whereby the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, dated 24-9-2007 was set aside.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Mr. Taqi Ahmad Khan at the very outset raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the instant civil revision on the ground that the petitioner has not affixed the court-fee of Rs.15,000 on the plaint as well as on the instant civil revision in compliance of the judgment impugned herein. For this purpose, the learned counsel for the respondent drew my attention to last part of para.11 of the judgment impugned herein wherein the learned Appellate Court while accepting the appeal observed as under:-- "The plaintiff is directed to affix court-fee of Rs.15,000 on the plaint within 10 days of this judgment, otherwise his suit would stand dismissed. The appellant is also directed to affix court-fee on the memo. of appeal of Rs.15,000 within 10 days, otherwise appeal would be treated as dismissed."

3. Also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has neither affixed the court-fee on the plaint as ordered by the learned Appellate Court nor the instant civil petition so the petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. When confronted with this situation to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner approached to this Court against the said judgment so the petitioner is not required to affix the court-fee. Further contended that the petitioner also submitted two applications to the learned Appellate Court for extension in time to levy the court-fee but the same was declined. Also contended that the petitioner applied for the certified copy and the moment, the same was supplied, the petitioner filed the instant civil revision within the time stipulated by law and even otherwise the learned trial Court while recording elaborated findings observed that the petitioner is not required to affix the court-fee. Reliance is placed on Ghulam Hassan through Representatives v. Mst. Kaniz Begum and others 2007 YLR 1454, Kishwar Iqbal Khan through Attorney v. Muhammad Ali Zaki Khan and others 2006 CLC 1287, Haji Mitha Khan v. Mst. Nafees Begum and 2 others 1995 CLC 896 and Mubarak Ahmad and 2 others v. Hussain Muhammad through Legal Heirs 2001 SCMR 1868.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted a certified copy of the application, dated 15-2-2008 and an order, dated 19-2-2008. The petitioner filed the application dated 15-2-2008 under Order XLI, rule 5, C.P.C. wherein it was submitted to the learned Appellate Court to grant the interim relief till the petitioner avails the further remedy. The said application was heard and finally dismissed by the learned Court on 19-2-2008 mainly on the ground that no execution petition is pending of the petitioner so the application is not maintainable. The certified copy of another application along with its order was submitted before the Court during the arguments by the learned counsel for the respondent which shows that the petitioner filed another application on 22-2-2008 whereby the petitioner sought the extension in fixation of court-fee on the ground that due to general election and for taking attested copy of the judgment to file the instant revision petition, he could not affix the court-fee within ten days as directed by the Court. The said application was too heard and finally dismissed by the learned Appellate Court on 22-2-2008, on the ground that the Appellate Court has no jurisdiction to extend the time. The record of the application filed by the petitioner is evident, that the order/judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court on 12-2-2008, whereby the petitioner was directed to affix court-fee was very much in his knowledge. The petitioner firstly made an effort to obtain the interim relief by the learned trial Court and secondly for extension in time so the ground taken by the petitioner of ignorance and having no knowledge of the said order has no force. Even otherwise, the Appellate Court passed the judgment on 12-2-2008, the petitioner filed application for obtaining the certified copy on 13-12-2008 and the certified copies were delivered to the petitioner on 16-2-2008 whereby the petitioner filed the application for extension in time before the learned Appellate Court on 22-8-2008, the last date of the time given by the learned Appellate Court. Further, although the certified copies were supplied by the Copying Agency to the petitioner on 16-2-2008 but petitioner filed the instant civil revision on 23-2-2008 that too is after the period granted by the learned Appellate Court to affix the court-fee. On the other hand, the respondent has already affixed the court-fee as directed by the learned Appellate Court. The petitioner, who vigorously contested the appeal before the learned Appellate Court was very much aware of the order and the time given by the Appellate Court to affix the court-fee and further, subsequently, filing of applications by the petitioner is sufficient to understand that the petitioner deliberately and wilfully did not comply with the order and has not affixed the court-fee on the plaint as well as on the instant civil revision. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no relevant to the case.

6. This petition has no force and is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./G-29/L Petition dismissed.