' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.~ Through this civil revision, the petitioner has called in question judgment and decree, dated 5-5-2000 of the learned Additional District Judge, Narowal whereby appear of the petitioner was dismissed having become infructuous for the reason that the petitioner as the plaintiff failed to comply With the specific direction given by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narowal through judgment and decree, dated 13-12-1995 to make up the deficiency in payment of the court-fee uptil 14-1-1996.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset admitted that the petitioner neither paid up the deficient court-fee on the plaint as per the terms of judgment and decree, dated 13-12-1995 nor did he pay the court-fee on the memo, of appeal. He however stated that it was the duty of the appellate court to allow atleast one opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiff for making up the deficiency in the payment of court-fee on the plaint instead of pronouncing the judgment of rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C holding the petitioner's appeal to have become infructuous there against.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and decree dated
(sic) and also stated that despite specific direction, the petitioner plaintiff contumaciously and deliberately failed to pay the deficient court-fee on the plaint and also did not pay the court-fee on the memo, of appeal.
4. Heard.
5. In the petitioner's suit for possession, on the contesting pleadings of the parties, Issue No,8 was framed by the learned trial Judge on the incorrect valuation and payment of the court-fee as well as jurisdiction and as to its effect. On recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narowal dismissed the suit, yet deciding Issue No, 8 held as under "....................... The value of the suit property is Rs,50,000 for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction and the plaintiff was under obligation to affix court-fee for a sum of Rs,3,750 on plaint by valuing the suit at Rs,50,000 for the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee as per his own admission.
Accordingly, he is directed to make up good deficiency in court-fee within one month i.e, up to 14- 1-1996 otherwise his plaint shall also be deemed to have been rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.
6. The petitioner against the above judgment and decree dated 13-12-1995 filed his appeal. The Registrar of the learned first appellate court also made a report that the court-fee of Rs,3,750 had not been paid on the memo, of appeal as well. The appeal was admitted to the regular hearing and order of status quo was passed by the learned first appellate Court on 2-1-1996 in the following terms :- ' "Status quo with regard to the property in dispute be maintained till then subject to notice. "
7. As above referred, the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff admitted that the petitioner neither paid up the deficiency in the court-fee on the plaint nor did he pay the court-fee on the memo, of appeal.
8. Since the question of non-payment of court-fee on the memo, of appeal is not the subject- matter of the present civil revision and the impugned judgment, dated 5-5-2000 of the learned first appellate court was not based upon this question, therefore, this Court will abstain from giving any observations as to the effect of non-payment of the court-fee on the memo, of appeal. The restricted question before this Court is as to whether the terms of judgment and decree, dated 13- 12-1995 of the learned trial Judge, Narowal obliged the petitioner plaintiff to make up the deficiency of the court-fee by the given, date of 14-1-1996 or otherwise to face the rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C.
9. While deciding Issue No,8, the learned trial Judge, categorically and clearly held that the petitioner was liable to make up the deficiency in payment of the court- fee within a period of one month i.e, from 13-12-1995 to 14-1-1996. This observation was regulated by a rider that "otherwise his plaint shall also be deemed to have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C". Instead of paying the deficient court-fee, the petitioner filed his appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 13- 12-1995 and also obtained order of status quo with regard to the property in dispute. The petitioner-plaintiff never prayed for suspension of the operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 13-12-1995. From the tenor of the status quo order, it transpires that the same was prayed for to prevail with regard to the property in dispute. The petitioner neither prayed nor requested nor agitated against the direction for payment of the court-fee uptil 14-1-1996. Even today, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not deny that it was the petitioner-plaintiff's obligation to pay the deficient court-fee; instead the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the deficient court-fee was not paid by the date fixed by the learned trial Judge in compliance with the terms of the judgment and decree, dated 13-12-1995. His sole submission was that the petitioner should have been given one opportunity by the learned first appellate court.
10. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is self-defective. The appeal remained pending before the learned first appellate court from 2-1-1996 to 5-5-2000 when the impugned judgment and decree was passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Narowal. The petitioner never made any request for suspension of the operation of the impugned judgment and decree which otherwise mandated the petitioner to pay the deficiency in the court-fee by 14-1- 1996 which date expired about four years and four months prior to the impugned judgment and decree dated 5-5-2000. As per the decree of the learned trial Judge, upon non-payment of the court-fee, plaint of the petitioner's suit was to stand automatically rejected under Rule 11of Order VII C.P.C. As such, after the expiry of period of one month i.e, from 13-12-1995 to 14-1-1996, the plaint stood rejected because of non-compliance with the terms of the decree by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that it was the duty of the learned first appellate court to either point out to the petitioner or to grant him one chance to pay the deficient court-fee when the terms of the decree were concise and clear. And that the period fixed by the learned trial Judge in the decree for payment of the court-fee had already been passed and the plaint as per the decree stood rejected.
11. In view of the above, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree. This civil revision is thus dismissed with costs,