' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- This is rather an unfortunate case. The petitioner-lady filed a suit for recovery of Rs,50,000 against the respondents. She was allowed to file the suit as a pauper and after a contest and trial it was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 8-12-2005 of the learned trial Court. The respondents filed a first appeal which was heard by Syed Pervaiz Ali Shah, Additional District Judge, Sargodha. I may note here that one of the questions raised in the appeal was as to whether the petitioner was correctly declared to be a pauper. It was answered in the affirmative. The other points were also decided against the respondents and the appeal was dismissed as being devoid of substance. I deem it appropriate to reproduce here the following from the ultimate para.14 of the judgment dated 11-11-2006 of the learned Additional District Judge:- "There is no order as to costs. It is pertinent to mention here that under Order XXXIII, rule 10 of the C.P.C., the plaintiff who had succeeded in the suit is bound to make payment of court-fee, therefore, within next thirty days she is directed to make payment of Rs,3,750 as court-fee and in case of nonpayment of the said court-fee her suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed."
' The petitioner-lady filed an application on 23-1-2007 stating that she was able to get a copy of the judgment only on 20-1-2007 when she became aware that she had to deposit court-fee within 30 days and she prayed for extension of time. This application was dismissed by Mr. Muhmmad Azhar Chaudhry, Additional District Judge, Sargodha, on 6-3-2007 observing that the suit already stands dismissed in terms of the said earlier order and he cannot help the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is a matter of record that the petitioner was allowed to sue as a pauper and the Additional District Judge had no authority to direct her to pay any court fee and that too with reference to Order XXXIII, rule 10, C.P.C. The respondents have been personally served. However, despite calls they have not turned up. They are proceeded against ex parte.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records, appended with this civil revision. As noted by me above, the petitioner was allowed to sue as a pauper and the said decision was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha. He has proceeded to pass the order with reference to Order XXXIII, rule 10, C.P.C. I deem it necessary to reproduce the said provision of law hereunder:--- "10. Costs where pauper succeeds:--- Where the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, the Court shall calculate the amount of court-fees which would have been paid by the plaintiff if he had not been permitted to sue as a pauper; such amount shall be recoverable by the Provincial Government from any party ordered by the decree to pay the same, and shall be a first charge on the subject- matter of the suit."
'It will be seen that the said learned Additional District Judge proceeded to pass the said order without even caring to read the said rule 10 of Order XXXIII, C.P.C. He made no orders as to costs. He was required only to calculate the amount of court-fee payable and this was to be recovered by the Provincial Government from the party, which was to be ordered to pay the same and the effect of such an order is that the said amount shall be a first charge on the subject-matter of the suit.
There was no ground whatsoever for the Additional District Judge to have directed the petitioner to pay the court-fee and to impose penalty of dismissal of the suit for non-payment thereof.
4. It is rather ironical that the learned Additional District Judge passed such a reckless order to the detriment of the petitioner when the respondent who did not even claim to be pauper had not paid any court-fee on the appeal stating that since the decree has been passed in a pauper suit the court-fee is exempted. The other Additional District Judge who dismissed the application and passed the impugned order dated 6-3-2007 has also done so without even a look at his records or even- the judgment passed by his predecessor. The civil revision is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 6-3-2007 as also 11-11-2006 inasmuch as the petitioner has been directed to pay the court-fee being wholly without jurisdiction are set aside. The amount of court fee i,e, Rs,3,750 shall be recovered as costs from the respondents along with the decretal amount by the Executing Court to be paid to the Provincial Government if it so claims. Since- the respondents have not turned up to contest this civil revision, no orders as to costs therein.
5. A copy of this judgment along with this file be immediately placed before the Honourable Inspection Judge of Hafizabad District where Syed Pervaiz Ali Shah, Additional District Judge, is stated to be posted presently, for appropriate orders.