LEHRASAP KHAN, J.~This writ petition assails the judgment dated 24-10-1983 and 25-1-1982, passed respectively by the learned Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and the Additional Commissioner, Revenue, Sargodha.
2. Agricultural land measuring 31-1/2 kanals, as described in detail in paragraph 1 of the writ petition, situate in village Chabba Porana, Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha, was purchased by the petitioner. The sale was pre-empted by respondent No.4 on the ground that he was in occupation of the land as tenant. The respondent's suit was dismissed by the learned Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Bhalwal on 7th April, 1981, on the ground that the requisite court fee was not paid within the period of limitation. The respondent/pre-emptor prefered an appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner, Revenue, Sargodha. His appeal was accepted and the suit was decreed on 25-1-1982. It was held by the learned Additional Commissioner that the deficiency in court fee was made good within the the allowed by the learned trial Court and, therefore, the suit of the respondent could not be dismissed on the ground that the court fee was not paid within the period of limitation for filing the pre-emption suit. The petitioner, thereafter, went in revision before the learned Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, but his revision was dismissed on 24th October, 1983. Thus the present writ petition.
3. It has been mainly contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent was directed to get the net profits prepared at an early date and to make good the deficiency accordingly but he failed to do so for a pretty long the and thus his suit was liable to be dismissed. It has been urged that the respondent did not care to file the statement of net profits and to make good the deficiency for a period of one year and one month after institution of the suit,although limitation for filing of pre-emptor suit expired on 2-6-1977, and the pre-emption suit was filed with deficient court fee on 1st June, 1977 i.e. Only one day prior to the expiry of period of limitation. It appears that the petitioner wants to avail of the dictum laid down in Mst.Walavat Khatun Vs Khalil Khan and another (PLD 1979 S.C. 821) wherein it was observed that where a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit was thoroughly negligent and contumacious and careless of his duty in affixing proper court fee, he was not entitled to any indulgence for granting of the having effect of causing prejudice to the defendant whose title may have become perfect by expiry of period of limitation.
4. As a matter of fact, in a subsequent judgment viz Mst.Parveen Vs.Mst. Jamsheda Begum and another P.S.C.1983 (S.C.Pak)618, Walavat Khatun's case has been considered by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan and with reference to the provisions of sections 148 and 149 CPC read with those of Order VII rule 11 ibid, section 3 of Limitation Act and section 10 (ii) of the Court Fees Act, it has been held that where the trial Court granted the to the plaintiff in a pre-emption suit to supply the deficiency in the court fee and the order had been complied with by the plaintiff. The question of bar of limitation did not arise in such cases and such suits could not be dismissed on the ground of having become the- barred. In yet another subsequent judgment i.e Siddique Khan and 2 others Vs Abdul Shakur Khan and another P.S.C. 1984 S.C.Pak 567 similar view has been expressed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
5. In the circumstances of the present case, the learned trial Court did not determine the deficiency in court fee at all. A vague order was passed requiring the respondent to make good the deficiency in court fee in accordance with the statement of net profits to be filed by him. No definite date was fixed for doing so. The respondent, however, complied with the direction of the Court. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent is liable for gross negligence or contumacy.
6. In this view of the matter, on exception can be taken to the impugned judgments. The writ petition, therefore, must fail and is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.