SAAD SAOOD JAN, J. --The respondents filed a suit inter aria for a declaration that they were owners in possession of the property in dispute. They affixed court-fee stamps worth Rs.30 on the plaint. The petitioners raised an objection that for the purpose of court fee the plaint had been under-valued. The suit was ultimately decreed. Nevertheless, in its judgment the trial Court upheld the objection of the petitioners and found that for the purpose of court fee the plaint should have been valued at Rs.13,000. Consequently, it called upon the respondents to make up the deficiency in the court fee within a certain period.
2. From the judgment of the trial Court the petitioners preferred an appeal before the District Judge.
Despite the finding of the trial Court on their own objection that the value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee was Rs.13,000 they too affixed court fee stamps of the value of Rs.30 on the memorandum of appeal. On an objection raised by the respondents the learned Additional District Judge allowed the petitioners one week to make up the deficiency in the court fee. The petitioners made up the deficiency within the time allowed to them.
3. The respondents filed a revision petition in the High Court challenging the legality of the order of the learned Additional District Judge whereby the petitioners were granted extension in time to make up the deficiency in the Court fee. A learned Single Judge accepted the revision petition, set aside the order of extension and directed that the judgment and decree of the trial Court should hold the field. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge.
4. It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that their initial failure to pay the proper amount of court fee was due to the fact that the decree-sheet prepared by the trial Court showed the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee as Rs.200. They were thus misled by the erroneous entry in the decree sheet in this regard. In any case they were entitled to an opportunity for making up the deficiency as laid down in Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakoor Khan (PLD 1984 S.C. 289). As they had made up .The deficiency within the time granted to them by the learned Additional District Judge the High Court erred in law in making an order which had the effect of dismissing their appeal.
5. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
Security for costs in the sum of Rs.2,500. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record.