' This Civil Revision arises from an order dated 24-4-1980 of Mr.Shabbir Hussain Chatha, Civil Judge Ferozewala, District Sheikhu pure, whereby an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. brought by the petitioner-vendees was rejected, and time was allowed to the respondent/pre-emptor to make good the deficiency in court-fee on the corrected valuation of the suit at Rs,75,636.15 till 25- 5-1980.
2.The respondent/plaintiff sought to pre-empt the land measuring 220 Kanals sold ostensibly for a sum of Rs,85,000 on 30-1-1974. He brought the suit on 18-1-1975 paying court-fee only on Rs,15,000 without explaining as to how he had arrived at it.The learned Civil Judge in his order dated 8-2- 1975 directed him to make good the deficiency in court-fee after filing Naqsha Jharhpaidawar and also to deposit the 1/5th Zar-i-Panjam to the tune of Rs,17,000 before the 12-4-1975. The suit kept on drifting from Court to Court for one reason or the other till 20-4-1980, when the petitioners made the application in question under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the respondent-pre-emptor had failed to comply with the order of the Court in having not filed either the Naqsha Jharhpaidawar or paid the deficiency in court-fee. Alongwith the petition, he filed the said Naqsha which worked out the valuation at Rs,75,636.15.
3. The petition was opposed, but the lower Court, as indicated above, allowed time to the respondent-pre-emptor to make good the deficiency in court-fee till 25-5-1980. .Aggrieved by it, the petitioners- vendees have brought the present revision petition.
4. Counsel for the petitioners placing reliance upon Sohara v. Rashid Ahmed and others PLD 1981 Lah. 261 affirmed in Hidayatullah and others v. Muhammad Ibrahim and another 1981 SCMR 381, contended that the lower Court committed a material irregularity in having ignored the important facts. He pointed out that the suit was brought only a few days before the expiry of the limitation of the prescribed period of one year without making any mention in the plaint how valuation for the purpose of court-fee was worked out at Rs,15,000. He added that the order of the Court was contumaciously not complied with inasmuch as neither Naqsha Jharhpaidawar was produced even till today, nor was the valuation did not correct, nor court-fee thereon paid. He emphasized that such, a lethargic attitude on the part of the respondent-plaintiff. extended over years and that it exhibited positive real fides on his part to vex the vendees/petitioners in the exercise of his predatory right. On these facts, it was asserted that there was no idea of giving any further time to him for paying court-fee and that the Court acted in this behalf with a material irregularity.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/pre-emptor referred to Ghulam Haider v.
Noor Muhammad 1979 CLC 414, in which an order directing the production of Naqsha Jharhpaidawar was considered not sufficient to meet the requirements of Order VII, rule 11(b), C.P.0 and the rejection of the plaint was set aside.
6. I am afraid the case cited on behalf of the respondent/pre-emptor does not apply to the facts of, this case, as no direction had been passed thereon by the trial Court to make good the deficiency of court-fee. What instead it directed was to file' Naqsha Jharhpaidawar which obviously did not squarely meet the mischief of Order VII, rule 11(b), C.P.C. In this ease, there was a clear-cut direction of making good the deficiency in the court-fee after filing Naqsha Jharhpaidawar. I think it quite sufficiently met the ends of the said provision of law, even though there was no specific mention of the fact that the valuation of the suit be first corrected. The purport of the rule is to get the court-fee paid and as such an operative order was quite discernible in the phraseology, used by the trial Court. No help could be sought from the said precedent case.
7. The facts of the present case were squarely covered by the decision made in the afforested case of Sohara. There was no proportion between Rs,15,000 mentioned in the plaint and Rs,75,636.15 later found on the basis of Jharhpaidawar. The attitude of the respondent/pre-emptor was wanton, in that he omitted to explain in the plaint itself how he happened for choose such a low value as compared to the corrected one, nor did he care to indicate if the property in question yielded no profits. He proceeded in a haphazard manner in this context and when he was directed to do something in that behalf, he remained negligent for years together. There was no point in pleading that the suit kept on changing Court. Once the order was passed, it should not have been lost sight of. The valuation shown being ridiculous was another reason too. It was an area measuring 220 Kanals ostensibly sold for Rs,85,000. The valuation initially shown had no relationship with such a valuable property and it all suggested the respondent's mala fides in the matter. The rule laid down in the above-cited case of Sohara aptly covered the case in hand. The view adopted by the lower Court was 'quite in disregard of this dictum and amounted to a material irregularity. The respondent should not have been given time as he failed to do the needful during five years, 8.As a result, the revision petition is. allowed the order of the lower Court in question is set aside, and instead the petitioners' application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. is accepted, and as a consequence the respondent's plaint for pre-emption is rejected. The decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.