MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.--This Civil Revision arises out of a suit-for possession through pre- emption filed by the respondent Shaukat Ali on 23rd of April, 1976 in the Court of Administrative Civil Judge Gujranwala against the petitioners out of whom petitioners No.2 and 3 namely Riaz Ahmad Khan and Javed Iqbal are minors. The respondents had purchased through a registered deed of sale dated 28th of April 1975 agricultural land measuring one Kanal -18 Marlas situate in Muaza Gondlanwala, Tehsil and District Gujranwala from Mst.Khurshid Bibi for a sum of Rs.9000/-. This sale was pre-empted by the respondent who claimed superior right of pre-emption as being co- sharers in the land. This suit was decreed by the learned trial court on 12.12.1978. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Gujranwala on 22nd of September, 1981.
Hence this civil revision.
2. The learned counsel appearing in support of this civil revision have raised to contentions, firstly, that the suit was not properly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction and since the plaint was filed with a deficient court-fee, it was not a plaint in the eyes of law and the suit should have been dismissed on this ground alone; secondly, that the respondent plaintiff had not appointed proper guardian-ad-litum for petitioners No.2 and .3 who were minors and as such the suit was incompetent.
3. Both the contentions of learned counsel are without any force. As regards the first contention suffice it to say that the controversy as to whether the plaint filed with a deficient courtfee, is a plaint in the eyes of law and whether the nonpayment of proper courtfee make the presentations of plaint invalid has been settled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in j Siddiquc Khan and to others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another (PLD 1984 | S.C. 289). It has been held in this authority that the date of presentation of a complaint shall be the date on which the same is accepted by the Court notwithstanding any deficiency in the courtfee and further that a plaintiff/pre-emptor cannot be nonsuited on the ground of not having paid proper courtfee at the the of filing of a suit. Their Lordships were further pleased to laid down that in case the court fee is found to be deficient it is the I duty of the court to determine the exact amount of the deficiency and to allow the petitioner to make up the same by depositing the requisit amount. In the instant case the courts had found no deficiency in the payment of court fee. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out the exact amount of court fee which according to him should have been affixed. ) His position however is that the statement of net profits relied upon by the trial Court did not pertain to the correct period of the and, therefore, the court should not have worked out the deficiency of Court fee on that basis. The question was never raised before the lower appellate court and cannot be allowed to be reagitated at this stage. Even otherwise the petitioner themselves have filed statement of net profit Ex.D-2-3/3 in which the net profits for one year had been worked out at Rs.123.33. According to this document the valuation for the purpose of court fee shold have been fixed at 15 times Rs.123.33 which comes to Rs.1849.95. In the plaint however, this valuation had been affixed at Rs.3000/-. Even on the factual plaint, there was no deficiency in payment of court fee at- all.
4. Reverting to the other contention of the learned counsel, it is to be noticed that at the the when the suit was filed the plaintiff had proposed that petitioner No.1 Ijaz Ahmad Khan the real brother of petitioners No.2 and 3 minors for being appointed as guardian-ad-litem. The plaint was also accompanied by an application for appointment of guardian. Ijaz Ahmad Khan the proposed guardian however, refused to at as a guardian. The learned trial court, therefore; appointed Muhammad Nazir, the Reader of the Court as guardian who filed the written statement contesting the suit. Later on, however, the controversy again arose regarding the appointment of the guardian. The petitioner filed a revision in the Court of District Judge Gujranwala where Ali Ahmad the father of the minors agreed to become their guardian-ad-litem. The learned District Judge, therefore, on 7.11.1978 appointed Ali Ahmad the father of the minors. It is quite apparent that there was no defect in the appointment of the guardian. In any case, the interest of the petitioners was common with Ijaz Ahmad Khan petitioner No.1 who was major and was the real brother and co- vendee of the petitioners. He has been actively participating in the proceedings. Although there is no irregularity pointed out by the learned counsel yet even if there be some, no prejudice appears to have been caused to the petitioners No.2 and 3 and therefore, the proceedings taken by the trial court cannot be set at naught on a hypertechinical objection at this stage. The civil revision has no force and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.