' This revision was directed against judgment dated 22nd February, 1982 whereby the learned Additional District Judge maintained the order of the learned trial Court rejecting the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. The petitioner had filed a suit for possession through pre-emption in respect of the land in question. On the plaint court-fee of the value of Rs.75 was affixed on the basis of averments contained in para. No.8 of the plaint that tentative valuation is being fixed on account of non-availability of revenue papers. It was further stated that on receipt of the revenue papers the deficiency in the court-fee, if any, shall be made good. An application under section 149, C.P.C., for grant of time in making good the deficiency, if any, in the court-fee was also submitted. The learned trial Court vide order dated 25-2-1978 directed that after obtaining the revenue papers deficiency in the court-fee be made good by 20th March, 1978.
The petitioner-plaintiff then on 19th March, 1978 filed a statement of net profits delivered to him by the revenue officials and on the basis thereof additional court-fee of the value of Rs.300 was affixed. This schedule of net profits was prepared with reference to crops Kharif 1976 and Rabi 1977.
It is not disputed at this stage that the calculations made by the revenue officials were incorrect.
The petitioner then filed an amended plaint and in para. 8 thereof again it was repeated that deficiency, if any, shall be made good. The respondents-vendees on 6th April, 1978 filed written statement containing an objection with regard to the valuation of the suit. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues, including the one relating to the valuation of the suit, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The admitted position is that no evidence with regard to valuation of the suit was produced by the parties. The learned trial Court decided all the issues on merits in favour of the petitioner-pre emptor but rejected the plaint under Order VIII, rule 11, C.P.C., by returning the finding that the court-fee paid was deficient and that by then the limitation had expired. In this respect it was further observed that the extension granted on 25-2-1978 was not proper as that order was passed without notice and at a time when period of limitation had already expired. It was also noted that the statement of net-profits filed was not for the relevant period. No determination as to the quantum of court-fee actually payable was, however, made. The petitioner thereafter, filed an appeal but the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Muzaffargarh vide impugned judgment dated 22-2-1982. The learned appellate Court also agreed with the view of the learned trial Court that after expiry of period of limitation the extension in payment of court-fee cannot be granted. Reference was also made to certain precedents containing the view then prevailing. The rule which now prevails is contained in Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakoor Khan and another PLD 1984 SC 289. According to this pronouncement it is mandatory and obligatory for the Court to grant time under clause (c) of rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C., and the question of discretion does not arise and it is so whether the occasion arises at the very institution of the plaint or at a later stage. It was also observed that time is to be allowed as an obligation under Order VII rule 11 (c). With regard to contumacious conduct it was observed that if a plaintiff is allowed time to supply the deficiency in court-fee and then he fails to do so and asks for more time without justification, it would amount to his being obstinate and stubborn in ignoring or defying the requirement and authority of law. The repetition of such a conduct would amount to contumacy.
' In the instant case, admittedly, determination of the court-fee payable was never made and no specific direction for payment of any such specified sum was ever passed. In this view of the matter no question of non-compliance of any such specific direction arises. The learned trial Court was, therefore, not justified in applying rule 11 (c) of Order VIII, C.P.C., and the plaint was, therefore, illegally rejected. The learned appellate Court was, therefore, also not justified in maintaining the order of rejection of the plaint.
2. The net result of the above discussion is that the order of the learned trial court dated 26-11-1980 and the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge dated 22-2-1982 are set aside.
Consequently, the suit shall stand remitted to the learned trial Court for decision of the issue relating to Court-fee and valuation in accordance with law and to decide the .
3. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh on 18-5- 1985. The trial Court shall decide the suit within three months.
Case remitted.