1. ' The brief facts leading to this revision are that the pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner under M.
2. L. R. 115 on the basis of the superior rights of tenancy was dismissed by the A. C./Collector, Layyah with the following findings:-
(i) That the suit had been filed with deficient court-fee;
(ii) That the suit was time-barred;
(iii) That the suit was for partial pre-emption, and
(iv) That the superior rights of tenancy were not established.
3. ' The judgment/decree of the A.C./Collector having been upheld in appeal, the petitionary is in revision against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner, dated 15-5-1984.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that one of the joint vendees Fateh Din had died on 5-5-1975 before the pre-emption suit was filed.
4. Further, that by the time the legal representative of Fateh Din had been impleaded, the statuzory period of limitation of one year had already passed. Such being position I would uphold the concurrent findings of the lower Courts that the pre-emption suit was time-barred. On the issue of court-fee, I observe that the learned Additional Commissioner had determined the court-fee as Rs, 5,820.75 whereas the petitioner tendered court-fee of only Rs, 2,800. While filing this revision, it was incumbent on the petitioner to have filed the revision with the court fee which had been determined by the lower Courts. This revision is not maintainable on this issue as well. For reasons recorded above, I would dismiss the revision.