' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against Judgment, dated 20-1-1980 of the Lahore High Court; whereby appellant's regular civil second appeal, arising out of a pre-emption decree passed by the trial Court in his favour but set aside in Ist appeal, was dismissed.
2. Objection was raised by the defendant/vendee side regarding deficiency of court-fee paid by the appellant. It was overruled and decree was passed in appellant's favour. The 1st appellate Court, on respondents appeal held that although the appellant had supplied the deficiency within a short time after filing of the suit, yet by that date it had become time-barred. Hence the decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed. The High Court having upheld the Ist appellate judgment on 20-4-1980, leave to appeal was granted to examine the following arguments of the learned counsel:- "that the legal question involved in this case relates to deficiency in court-fee in a pre-emption suit and that the question arising in this case already stands decided in Mst. Parveen v. Mst. Jamsheda Begum etc. PLD 1983 SC 227; Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan etc. PLD 1984 SC 157 and Siddique Khan etc. v. Abdul Shakur Khan etc. PLD 1984 SC 289. In view of the above submissions leave is granted in this case."
3. The respondents side has chosen not to appear. They are, therefore, proceeded ex parte.
The learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the argument advanced at the leave stage.
The aforenoted latest judgments of this Court support his submission. The plaintiff/appellant was entitled to at least one chance to make up the deficiency in court-fee. He availed of this opportunity and made up the deficiency. The question of limitation, as held by this Court in the cited case, did not arise. The Ist appellate and High Court Judgments, on this point, cannot be upheld. This appeal, therefore, has to be allowed. The impugned judgments and decrees are set aside. There shall be no order as to cost.