1. ' Mian Muhammad Younas Shah, Advocate, Peshawar, for petitioner is present and has been heard in these two revision petitions involving a common point in issue between the same parties.
2. These two revision petitions have arisen out of an order of the Assistant Collector 1st ,Grade dated 12-11-1973 by which the application of the petitioner for extension of period for payment of court-fee has been rejected and this decision has been upheld in an appeal an further appeal by the Collector and Additional Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the orders of the lower Courts on the ground that a Court has got the jurisdiction to extend time for payment of court-fee even after the period has expired. Bu he could not furnish any convincing arguments nor could he produce any case-law in support of his contention. Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code gives the Court ample power to exercise its discretion in extending the time limit for making good the deficiency in payment of court-fee. But once this discretion is exercised, and the order is announced, this Court ceases to have further jurisdiction. In this case the learned Additional Commissioner has rightly concluded that after the expiry of one month's time allowed by the Court, it had become "functus officio" and was not at all competent to give extension in time any longer. In this respect he has placed reliance on a solid judgment of the High Court as contained in PLD 1956 Dacca 280.
3. ' It is the fault of the petitioner in not availing of the one month's time limit fixed for the payment of the court-fee arrears and since he has failed to do so without sufficient cause, he must suffer. In view of these circumstances the concurrent findings, of the lower Courts are upheld. The revision petition is, therefore, rejected in limine. in limine.