' The appeal of the petitioners having been filed against a judgment and decree, dated 14th July, 1979 passed by the learned Civil Judge Ilnd Class, Jaranwala in favour of the pre- emptor/respondent in a suit instituted by Ghulam Muhammad respondent for possession through pre-emption in respect of the land measuring 8 Kanals and 18 Marlas situated in Chak No. 628/GB Tehsil Jaranwala sold by Fazal Muhammad son of Allah Bakhsh and Ibrahim son of Ali Muhammad to the petitioners in consideration of Rs.14,000 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad being insufficiently stamped, as such, not having been properly filed within the prescribed period of limitation alongwith an application made by the petitioners under section 149, C.P.C. seeking extension in time to pay up the deficient court-fee on the memorandum of the appeal, vide his order, dated 4-11-1981.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended in this revision having been brought from the aforesaid decision that the petitioners were misled by the amount of court-fee as mentioned in the decree sheet. In the decree sheet which was issued to the petitioners there is an insertion of only Rs.225 as court-fee which is a confirmed fact. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the decree sheet attached to the lower Court record of which the above-said decree sheet is a copy bears the fact that Rs.1,025 were also added to Rs.225 as the court-fee in implementation of an order, dated 12-9-1979 therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot say that the decree sheet as retained in the original record did not give the full amount of the court-fee.
3. From the perusal of .the decree sheet on the record it is quite obvious that this addition in the amount of court-fee was made not at that time when a copy of the decree was issued to the petitioners, therefore, the learned counsel's submission that the petitioners were misled by the decree sheet as issued to them cannot be refuted. In View of the above-said particular fact the appeal could not be dismissed because of the memorandum of appeal as insufficiently stamped.
The appellate Court was in the circumstances bound to give an opportunity to the petitioners to make-up the deficiency as to court-fee on the memorandum of appeal.
4. Apart from this, it has been held as to the precise law obtaining, by the learned Supreme Court in Siddiq Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakoor and others PLD 1984 SC 289, that clause (c) of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. which relates to the drawing up of the plaint on a properly stamped paper as an essential requirement to save it from ultimate rejection for the non-payment of the court-fee would also apply to appeals, therefore, giving of an opportunity or requiring a party concerned to supply the requisite stamp papers within the time to be fixed by the Court, is a must. The learned Additional District Judge has not exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with law, therefore, this revision petition is accepted and the order of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 4-11-1981 is set aside and the case is remanded to him to decide the appeal afresh on merits after giving an opportunity to the petitioners to make-up the deficiency in the court-fee qua the appeal. However, there is no order as to costs. , case remanded.