' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 11-4-2000 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dismissed Regular Second Appeal No,189 of 1983 filed by the petitioner maintaining the earlier determination of the learned First Appellate Court.
2. Facts briefly are that the respondents filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption on 27-11- 1979 and affixed court-fee of Rs,6 at the time of its institution. Therefore, the learned trial. Court asked the respondents to file Schedule of Annual Net Profit, whereafter Rs,1,800 court-fee was again affixed by them. Admittedly, the respondents submitted the deficient court-fee alongwith the Schedule of Annual Net Profit, which was accepted by the learned trial Judge without any objection. However, subsequently, the plaint was rejected by the trial Judge under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. As proper court-fee was not affixed. The respondents filed an appeal against the above order, which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, through his judgment dated 18-10-1983. The petitioner filed aforesaid Regular Second Appeal before the Lahore High Court at Multan Bench, which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge through his judgment dated 11-4-2000, impugned herein. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The sole point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents did not make up the deficiency in the court-fee within time, as such the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has committed an error in dismissing the Regular Second Appeal.
4. We have considered the contention advanced by the learned counsel and have gone through the entire documents placed on record. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the learned First Appellate Court, after attending to the entire aspects of the case, allowed the respondents to file deficient court-fee of Rs,59 within seven days, which was complied with. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court maintained the above order by advancing cogent reasons stating that no order whatsoever was passed by the learned trial Court directing the respondents to make up deficiency in the court-fee. The respondents, in the circumstances, shall not be made to suffer due to the inaction on the part of the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and .