' Sewa, appellant filed a suit for declaration that the sale by Mst. Sand widow of his brother Bhali vide Mutations Nos. 1633 and 1634, dated 23-11-1969, was illegal, contrary to law and was liable to be cancelled as well as for being given possession of the land in question. Sewa said that he was in possession of 1/9th share as an occupancy tenant in a joint khata and so was his brother. The suit was filed with a court-fee stamp of Rs,
15. On the objection of the defendant-respondents, the matter was examined and the learned trial Court directed the plaintiff Sewa to pay the proper court-fee within one month. This is vide order dated 11-12-1971. No compliance was made. A year later on 11-12-1972, the plaintiff put in an application under sections 148, 149, C. P. C. Read with section 151, C. P. C. For extension of time on the ground that "the original counsel of the plaintiff is seriously ill and has been admitted in Mayo Hospital, Lahore. The plaintiff could not make up the deficiency of court-fee due to bona fide impression of the plaintiff, and because of other unavoidable circumstances." The application was dismissed on 12-12-1972 and the plaint was also rejected the same day under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. By the learned Civil Judge, Lahore. The plaintiff filed an appeal with a court-fee of Rs,
3. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that the plaintiff had not complied with the order of the learned trial Court, dated 11- 12-1971 directing him to pay proper court-fee, nor, that order had been appealed, against within limitation. The plaint was, therefore, rightly. Rejected. The learned appellate Court also held that the court-fee on the appeal was also not in accordance with law. This is vide order dated 15-11-1976.
The plaintiff-petitioner filed a revision petition with a court-fee of Rs, 15 which was treated as R. S. A.
He was required to pay the proper court-fee which he declined and made an application that he should be allowed to delete the prayer for possession from the plaint. This was allowed on 25-2- 1978. This is objected to by the learned counsel for the respondents who submitted that, in any case even after deletion of the prayer for possession, the plaintiff-appellant was bound to pay the proper court-fee because the prayer for consequential relief i,e, cancellation of the sale-deed is still there in the plaint.
2. I have gone through the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. There is no doubt that the plaintiff Sewa was directed to pay proper court-fee within one month vide order, dated 11-12-1971. He neither complied with the order, nor, challenged the same ever. It had become final and binding on him. That being so, the plaint was rightly rejected and so also the appeal. He has persistently refused to pay court-fee when directed by the trial Court or by the High Court. Even with the permission to delete the prayer relating to possession, g he was still bound to pay court- fee as earlier directed because his suit was both for declaration as well as consequential relief for setting aside the mutations in favour of the respondent. For persistent and contumacious conduct the plaintiff-appellant has rightly been non-suited.
3. In view of what has been stated above, this appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs.