1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 3-5-1978, whereby he dismissed in limine a revision petition (Civil Revision No. 568 of 1978) preferred before him.
2. The facts, briefly stated, are that respondent No. 1, Ahmad A.I filed a suit for a declaration that he was the owner of the land sold to him by Muhammad Daood Khan (defendant No. 3 in the original suit), the real brother of Mst. Rabia (petitioner herein), even though, as it ultimately transpired, the share of Mst. Rabia was included in the said sale. The provisions of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act were relied upon m this behalf and it was submitted that the legality of the sale could not be challenged. A mandatory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful enjoyment of the suit land of the plaintiff was also sought as a consequential relief. This suit was decreed by the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 15-10-1976.
3. When the suit was filed, its value for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, in terms of section 7(iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act was Rs. 200. Later, in 1973, by virtue of section 8 of the Punjab Finance Act, 1973, which came into force on 1-7-1973, the law was amended and the court---fee for the purpose of value of the suit was fixed at fifteen times of the not profits of the preceding year.
4. However, on the memorandum of appeal Mst. Rabia, petitioner, affixed the court-fee of Rs. 15 on the basis of the old law, as the value of the appeal for the purpose of court-fee was Rs. 200.
5. Ahmad A.I (respondent herein) submitted an application on 14-2-1978 under Order VII, rule 11, C. P.
6. C. That the appeal was liable to be dismissed as it was written upon an insufficiently stamped paper. In response the petitioner moved an application on 26-2-1978 seeking permission for making up the deficiency in court-fee. The respondent (Ahmad A.I) opposed this prayer and the question before the appellate Court was whether the petitioner should be allowed extension of time in making up the deficiency m court---fee after this long period. The learned Addl. District Judge observed that according to the law laid down in Manzoor Hussain v. Ejaz Hussain (PLD 1972 Lah. 74) the appellant (petitioner before us) was under a legal obligation to file the memorandum of appeal affixing the court-fee in accordance with the amended law that had come into force on 1-4-1973. It was further held that the application moved on 26-2-1978 was belated and the petitioner had failed to show good cause for the extension of time in allowing her to make up the deficiency in court-fee. It was, accordingly, held that the memorandum of appeal was not validly instituted and as there was no reason to exercise the discretion under section 149, C. P. C. To extend the time, the application for extension of time was liable to be rejected. This order was passed on 16-4-1978.
7. The learned Judge in the High Court, on revision, refused to interfere holding that the case was of exercise of discretion and the discretion having been exercised by the Court concerned on a sound ground, section 115 C. P. C. Was not attracted. He, accordingly, dismissed the revision on 3-5-1978.
8. Before us it was argued that the share of the petitioner had been alienated by her brother illegally and the learned trial Court wrongly decreed the suit of the respondents herein. The appeal was undervalued on account of a bona fide mistake and that time should have been granted to make up the deficiency in court-fee.
9. We are not persuaded to agree. The High Court having exercised it discretion not to interfere in revisional jurisdiction, no ground for interference exists, as we do not consider that the said discretion has been exercised illegally or arbitrarily. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.