MUHAMMAD GUL, J.--Syed Afzal Shah, respondent No. 1 herein sued for possession by pre-emption of land measuring 95 kanal 8 marlas sold to the petitioners herein. The transaction was oral and a mutation was sanctioned for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 18,000. According to the pre- emptor, however, only Rs.12,000 were in fact paid and that Rs.18,000 were recited in the mutation as the sate price, to avoid pre-emption. The petitioner-vendees contested the suit on a number of pleas, including the plea that the plaint was insufficiently stamped. Fee on the suit was payable on fifteen times the annual not profits. Accordingly, the trial Court issued a commission for the determination of the not profits, and found the value of the land for purposes of court fee to be Rs.
18,000. Respondent No. 1 made up the deficiency in the court-fee and the triad Court after considera--petition of merits of the case, decreed the suit in his favour on payment of Rs. 18,000.
2. The petitioner filed an appeal in the High Court and in first instance paid a court-fee of Rs. 7f0.
However, their learned counsel endorsed a note on the same appeal that the court-fee was paid in accordance with the valuation in the copy of the plaint, though according to the copy of the decree sheet, the court-fee payable is Rs. 1,010. The petitioners' counsel however, undertook that upon verification of the proper court-fee payable, the petitioners will make up the deficiency. In the Registry of the High Court, the memorandum of appeal was found to be insufficiently stamped and the petitioners were given time to make up deficiency in the court-fee. This they failed to do so despite the appeal was adjourned thrice for the purpose. Finally the petitioners paid court-fee in the aggregate sum of Rs. 1,072.50 although the proper court-fee payable was Rs. 1,095. Thus there was deficiency of Rs. 22.50. In the meantime, the appeal was trans--feered to the Additional District Judge because of the change in law investing the District Judge with enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the appeals. Before the learned Additional District Judge, on 13th May 1964, respondent No. 1 moved a formal application praying for the dismissal of the appeal for being insufficiently stamped. The petitioners in their reply, admitted that the memorandum of appeal was insufficiently stamped ; they however, prayed that the time be extended for making up the deficiency to exercise of the Court's power under sections 149 and 151, C. P. C. Learned Additional District Judge refused to extend time and rejected the appeal under section 4 of the Court Fees Act.
3. The petitioner's Regular Second Appeal No. 354 of 1967 having been dismissed by a learned Single Judge, they have moved this leave petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were victims of a bona fide error and that there was no deliberate default or neglect on their part to make up the deficiency in the court-fee. Reliance was also placed upon the provisions of section 28 of the Court Fee Act which gives wide discretion to a Court to allow opportunity to make up the deficiency in the court-fee if a document is found to be insufficiently stamped. It is, however, not denied that on the basis of the report of the local Commissioner, the learned trial Court had fixed the value of the suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs.18,000-1-9 on which court fee of the value of Rs. 1,095 was paid by respondent No. 1 as plaintiff. The petitioners had only to peruse the record of the trial Court to find out the correct valuation of the appeal for purposes of court-fee. Having failed to do so, and to avail of at least three opportunities to make up the deficiency, the learned Additional District Judge was amply justified not to further extend time to enable them to make up the deficiency. Needless to say, a valuable right had accrued to the respondent No. 1, of which he cannot be justly deprived when the petitioners did not show due diligence and care in the prosecution of their appeal.
5. There is no force in this petition which is hereby dismissed.