' This revision is filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha, dated 16-3-1978. The brief facts of the case are that the pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner was decreed in his favour by the A.C./Collector on 20-8-1977. The decree was challenged before the Additional Commissioner on ground that the petitioner had not complied with the order of the A.C./Collector to make up the deficiency in the court-fee. The Addi4 tional Commissioner held that since the deficiency was not made up by .The date stipulated in the order of the A.C./Collector, the pre-emption decree would stand dismissed. The order of the Additional Commissioner is being contested in this revision on ground that no such directions were given by the A.C./ Collector.
2. I have heard the parties through their counsel and gone through the record of the lower Courts I find that the following issue was framed by the A.C., Collector, while considering the pre-emption suit of the petitioner:- "Issue No, 4.-Whether the suit is not properly valued for purposes of court-fee."
' The Collector recorded the following decision on this issue :- "The parties have not led any evidence for proof in support of the issue and hence this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants."
3. The Collector thereafter proceeded t-, award the decree in favour of the petitioner. These orders were anointed on 20-8-1977. After the announcement . Of the judgment and very specific finding on issue No, 4.In regard to adequacy of the court-fee, no room was left for any separate order being recorded on 20-8-1977, allegedly directing the petitioner to make up the deficiency in the court-fee.
4. I' have gone through the sheets of the interim orders of the A.C./ Collector and find no mention of the alleged orders having been passed by the A.C./Collector on 20-8-1977. There is, however, a separate sheet in another file, wherein such order has been recorded which appears to be a forged document. Even if this order was recorded by the A.C./Collector on 20-8-1977, it would have no effect on judgment given on 20-8-1977.
5. In view of my observations, I would set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner, in revision, and restore the judgment/decree of the Collector.