' The facts giving rise to this civil revision are that the petitioner, Kurshid, filed a suit for possession of certain land through pre-emption. The land was purchased by the respondents, Pir Bakhsh and others, on 25th July, 1979. On the plaint of the suit filed by the petitioner on 22nd July, 1980, he affixed a court-fee stamp of Rs, 2 only. It was, however, stated by him in the plaint that he would make up the deficiency in court-fee in accordance with the statement of net profits {{URDU TEXT}}.
The Civil Judge before whom the civil suit was filed directed him on 22nd July, 1980 to make up the deficiency in court-fee accordingly by 28th September, 1980. The petitioner had obtained the statement of net profits from the Patwari before that date, that is on 16th of August, 1980, but he did not pay any additional court-fee. According to the statement of net profits, valuation of suit for the purpose of court-fee was more than Rs, 1,00,000. When the case came up before the learned Civil Judge on 28th September, 1980 it was submitted by the petitioner that a rival suit for pre-emption had been filed by Walayat Khan and others by fixing the valuation of their suit at Rs, 25,000 for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction and since no court-fee was payable on the said amount, his plaint could not be rejected for non-payment of court-fee in accordance with the statement of net profits. This plea, however, did not find favour with the learned Civil Judge and, therefore, he rejected the plaint for non-payment of the requisite court-fee. The petitioner filed an appeal before an Additional District Judge but in vain. He has, therefore, come up in revision to this Court.
2. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the disputed land had been leased out for Rs, 1,015 per annum before it was sold and that it was on the basis of the lease money that in the rival suit valuation for the purpose of court-fee was fixed at Rs, 25,000 by treating Rs, 1,015 as the annual net profits of the land. It was, therefore, urged by him that the valuation of the suit brought by the petitioner could not be more than Rs, 25,000 and as such he was not liable to pay any Court-fee and the plaint, could not be rejected for non-payment of court-fee on the basis of net profits worked out by the Patwari.
3. It is a matter of common knowledge that generally court-fee is paid on the basis of net profits determined by the Patwari. The petitioner bad also undertaken to make good deficiency in Court- fee according to the said statement, The lease money cannot be equated with net profits because the lessee of any land would never agree to pay the entire income of the land to the lessor as lease money inasmuch as if the former does so, the lease would be absolutely of no use to him. He would surely retain some of the income with him and pay the rest to the lessor as lease money. By income of the land I mean the net profits thereof. In this view of the matte the lease money of the disputed land cannot be treated as its net profits. It was also conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that although the statement of net profits prepared by the Patwari had been placed on the record yet no documentary evidence was produced before the learned trial Court to show that the lease money of the disputed land was Rs, 1,015 per annum. The petitioner was highly negligent in the matter of the payment of court-fee inasmuch as he did not pay the requisite court-fee, according to the net profits of the disputed land, within the period of limitation. No explanation was offered by him for this shortcoming. He was directed by the learned trial Court to make good the deficiency in court-fee before a stipulated date but he did not do so. This speaks of contumacy on his part. The learned trial Court was, therefore, justified in rejecting his plaint.
4. There is no merit in this revision petition. It is dismissed in limine.