MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J. --- For the purposes of this writ petition detailed pleaded facts need not to be stated, suffice it to say that on 30.9.1998 the petitioner filed a suit against respondent No. 2 for possession by pre-emption of suit land purchased by latter vide Mutation No. 1707 attested on 7.8.1996. It was stated in the relevant para-9 of the plaint that value of the suit for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction is being fixed as Rs. 20,000/- and that deficiency will be made up on preparation of net profit. The suit came up before the learned Trial Court on 30.9.1996. The respondent was summoned for 26.10.1996 and the petitioner was directed to make up deficiency in accordance with the statement of net profit and Khasra Girdawari till the said date. On 26.10.1996 a learned counsel filed power-ofattorney fol. Respondent and the case was adjourned for written statement to 10.11.1996. There is nothing about the Court-fee in this order. Same is case with the order dated 26.10.1996. The written statement was filed on 11.12.1996. On 15.1.1997 the Presiding Officer was busy in some eledtion matters. On 22.2.97 the Presiding Officer was on leave. On 17.3.1997 the case was adjourned for recording of better statement on 12.4.1997 the Court was informed that another suit has been filed (by respondent No. 3). An amended plaint was ordered to be filed. The plaint was filed on 25.2.1998. I may note here that in-between the case was adjourned from time to time primarily for reasons of absence of the Presiding Officer. On 25.3.98 the written statement was filed. The case was adjourned from time to time. After completing formalities relatable to rival pre- emption suit, issues were framed on 9.10.1998. The case was adjourned for evidence of the petitioner to 3.12.1998. It was, on this date when an application was filed for dismissal of the suit. The reply was filed on 17.3.99. Thereafter the case was being adjourned for arguments on said application. On 8.9.01 the said application was fixed, none was present but the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. It was restored on 12.1.2002. In the same order it was found that no Court-fee is required as per price index unit. The case was adjourned for 6.2.2002 for evidence of the petitioner.
On 19.12.2002 it was noted that the petitioner has not affixed the Court-fee according to the net produce {{URDU TEXT}} The amount was found to be Rs. 37,383.29. Th'e petitioner was directed to pay the Court-fee within 30 days and the case was adjourned to 23.1.2003. On this date an application was filed for extension of time to pay the Court-fee, which was granted till 1.2.2003. On this date the Court-fee was paid.
2. The respondent No: 2 filed a revision petition against order dated 23.1.2003 extending time which was allowed by a learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali, on 23.12.2003 and the said order was set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit was filed in the year 1996 and no order as envisaged in Order VII, Rule 11(a), CPC was passed directing the petitioner to pay the Court-fee in accordance with law. According to him, the learned Additional District Judge has acted without lawful authority while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 support the impugned order with reference to the conduct of the petitioner as pointed out in the impugned judgment by the learned Additional District Judge.
4. I have examined the copies of the record. I may note here that at one stage I had called for record of the learned Trial Court but I find that copy of the order sheet which was to be examined had already been placed on record by the petitioner. I have already referred to several orders passed by the learned Trial Court above. As noted by me above, the suit was filed in the year 1996.
It appears that neither the parties 'nor the learned Trial Court was aware of the amendment made in clause (vi) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 vide Section 2 of the Court-Fees (Amendment) Act, 1990 (Act V of 1990) whereby the said provision was substituted as follows:-- "(vi) To enforce a right of pre-emption-- In suits to enforce a right of pre-emPtion--- Where the subject-matter is land, according to the valueof the land in respect. Of which the right it \claimed calculated by multiplying the produce index units of such land with the money value of produce index as notified by the Government and Where the subject-matter is a house dr garden, according to the value computed in accordance with .Clause (v) of this Section.- Explanation. Produced index unit"' means the measure notified by the Govern, rnent in terms of which the productivity of an acre of land of a particular, kind, in a particular assessment circle or area is computed."
The learned Trial Court on the other hand, proceeded to direct the Petitioner to pay Court-fee in accordance with statement of net profit and Khasra Girdawari and it appears that the petitioner was ultimately directed to pay the Court-fee on the amount of net profit. The entire exercise was, therefore, illegal and without jurisdiction. Apart from this no fault can be attributed to the petitioner when there is a finding by the learned Trial Court on '12.1.2002 that no court fee is payable as per price index unit.
5. The learned Additional District Judge in oblivion of the said circumstances apparent on the face of record and, of course, of the law on the subject has proceeded to allow the civil revision and to set aside the order extending time for payment of Court-fee.
6. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 23.12.2003 of learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali, is declared to be without lawful authority and void and is set aside. The result would be that the order passed by the learned Trial 'Court on 12.1.2002 with reference to the PIU passed in presence of the learned counsel for the parties and not challenged by any one shall stand restored. The suit shall, therefore, be decided in accordance with law. No order as to cost.