KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-This order will dispose of four petitions being C. P. S. L. As. Nos. 559/81, 560/81, 582/ 81 and 583/81.
2. The land in dispute which was described more fully in the relevant plaints was sold by Qasim Hussain to Hakim Ghiragh Din on 20-1-1966. Jalal Din petitioner in civil petition for special leave to Appeal No. 559/81 filed a suit to pre-empt the aforesaid sale on the ground of being an owner in the patti in which the land was located and also being a landowner in the estate.
3. The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 23-12-1970. The plaintiff/petitioner filed on appeal which was accepted by the learned District Judge on 11-4-1972, who correspondingly decreed the suit. However, on a further appeal of the vendee Hakeem Chiragh Din being R. S. A.
373/72, the order of the learned District Judge was reversed and the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner was dismissed.
4. The petitioner Jalal Din has now come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court (C. P. S. L. A. No. 559/81).
5. It is to be pointed out that the sale in this case took place on 20-1-1966. The suit was filed on 10-1- 1967 with a deficient court-fee. However, the civil Court granted time to the petitioner .To make good the deficiency of court-fee till 30-1-1967, because, the petitioner had not received the relevant lard munafa in time. Despite the fact that the aforesaid(M. S. H. Qureshi, J) document(s) had been received by the petitioner on 21-1-1967, he did not make good the deficiency of court-fee on 30-1-1967 and rather again prayed for and obtained a further extension of time for the purpose aforesaid, b making a false statement and by cheating the Court by a pretence that the relevant fard munafa had not yet been delivered to him. Taking note of this fact and relying upon Mst.
Walayt Khatun v. Khalil Khan and another PLD 1979 SC 851the High Court took exception to the extension of time and holding that in view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, this case did not warrant any justification for extension of time after obtaining the fard manafa, dismissed the suit as mentioned above. The High Court further held that the plaintiff had misreably failed to prove that he was an owner in any patti or in the estate.
6. We have heard the learned counsel at length who was unable tot point out any defect in the order of the High Court. It is well settled that institution of an insufficiently stamped plaint is not a valid institution within the meaning of section 3 of the Limitation Act IX of 1908 and the High Court in the light of the- facts quoted above was justified as not to condone the delay or extend the time so as to bring the suit within limitation. Similarly even on the respective merits and qualifications of the contesting parties, the finding of the High Court does not suffer from any misreading or omission of evidence and none has in fact been pointed out to us. In these circumstances we do not think that any case has been made out for grant o leave to appeal. Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 560/81, consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.
7. As regards the other three petitions it has been conceded by the, learned counsel that Hakeem Chiragh Din vendee being an owner in the estate, the relevant plaintiff Wali Muhammad in the corresponding suits, had no preferential right against him inasmuch as he i. e. Wali Muhammad was also merely a land owner and for that reason had no additional ground oft preference to rely upon in his favour.
8. The result is that the remaining three petitions also have no merit and are dismissed hereby.