' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---As per report of the Process Server, the respondent has refused to accept service, therefore, he is proceeded ex parte.
2. The respondent filed a suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs,48,990 against the petitioners, which was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 5-1-2002.
Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal, but without payment of the court-fee. The learned appellate Court without directing or enabling the petitioners to make up the deficiency in the payment of court-fee has dismissed their appeal through the impugned order dated 4-5-2002.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon PLD 1984 SC 289 (Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and 2 others) states that an opportunity should have been given to the petitioners to make up the deficiency and, therefore, the impugned order cannot sustain.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and find his arguments to be valid when tested on the touchstone of the above noted dictum of the Honourable Supreme Court. Resultantly, by allowing this petition, the impugned order is set aside; the appeal of the petitioners shall be deemed pending before the learned appellate Court and they are granted two months time to pay the requisite court-fee. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.