' MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---The respondent filed a suit on 25-3-2008 for possession through preemption against the petitioners. The learned Civil Court on 28-3-2008 directed the respondent to pay court-fee of Rs,15,000 within 30 days and adjourned to the case to 21-4-2008, on the failure of the respondent to affix the court-fee further time was allowed to the respondent and vide order dated 11-5-2008 the plaint was rejected. Under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The respondent assailed the said order through a revision before the Revisional Court. The learned Revisional Court held that respondent has deposited the amount in Government Treasury for issuance of court-fee, the amount was deposited before the target date as allowed by the learned Civil Court and as such the non-providing of the stamp paper by the State Bank of Pakistan or Government Treasury is not due to the fault of the respondent as such the order dated 12-5-2008 was set aside and case was remanded for correction of quantum of court-fee to the learned Civil Court. The petitioners have assailed this order through the present revision petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondent has deposited the court-fee of Rs,10,125 and not Rs,15,000 as ordered by the Civil Court and as such the finding of revisional Court is against law and facts. The perusal of record shows that the order for payment of court-fee amounting to Rs,15,000 was passed without ascertaining the value of the suit and proceeds of the suit. The respondent has affixed the value of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction as Rs,25,000 and in suit for pre-emption the court-fee is payable according to the proceeds of the land. The learned appellate Court has considered this aspect of the case and further while passing the impugned order has directed learned trial Court to ascertain the amount of court-fee actually payable. It seems that order for payment of Rs,15,000 was passed by learned trial Court without going through the contents of the plaint as well as without calculating the proceeds of the land in dispute. The learned appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that amount of court-fee was deposited and stamp papers were not issued to him by the treasury so it is not the fault of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Khan Muhammad v. Barkat Ali and another 1984 CLC 582, Riffat Iqbal v. Mst. Fatima Bibi (2007 SCM R 494) and Riffat Iqbal v. Addl.
District Judge Mandi Bahauddin and 4 others (2007 YLR 1319). In all these cases the issue was not that the amount of court-fee was deposited but stamp papers were not issued and as such facts of these cases are different from the facts of the present case.
3. The order of learned Appellate Court is in accordance with law and does not suffer from misreading and non-reading and not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it. This petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.