1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions from judgment, dated 9-12-1985 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners' (vendees/defendants) 'revisions arising out of respondents' suits, were dismissed.
2. The short point involved was of court-fee. The petitioners had objected to the levy of the court-fee before the trial Court on the basis that proper statement of net profits had not been produced.
3. Their objection was over ruled and the respondents' plaint was not rejected under Order VII, Rule 11.
4. The petitioners having failed in the appellate and revisional Court have Dow sought leave to appeal.
5. The High Court has noted that even if the correct statement of net profits would have been produced the court-fee paid would have been proper. The objection of the learned counsel that the High Court should not have relied upon certain document, is hyper technical in the circumstances of this case. Be that as it may no such contravention of law had been committed by the respondents so as to incur a liability under Order VII, Rule 11. The case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan PLD 1984 SC 157.
6. No justification has been made out for interference. Leave to appeal accordingly, is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.