1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---This appeal through leave of the Court by the plaintiff in a suit for pre-emption is directed against the judgment of the High Court; whereby his Regular Second Appeal was dismissed on consideration of questions relatable to payment of court-fee. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the validity of the impugned judgment in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Siddique Khan PLD 1984 SC 289. In this round the suit was decreed by the trial Court but the respondents' appeal was accepted on the ground that "there was no legal hitch for the respondent (the appellant (?) institution of the present suit or afterwards by the time which the Court had given to him but he failed to comply with the direction of the Court without any reasonable excuse". Admittedly no order was passed by the trial Court to supply the court-fee, after making determination of the amount of court-fee which, as was held in the case of Siddique Khan, was essential for the application of the penal provisions contained in Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C.; whereunder the appellate Court rejected the appellant's plaint.
2. ' On appellant's R.SA. a learned Judge in the High Court relying on two cases; one of 1961 of Bughdad-ul-Jadid and the other of 1949 from Lahore upheld the appellate judgment. The view taken by the learned appellate Courts, as held in the case of Siddique Khan was not sustainable.
3. Appellant was, as ruled therein entitled to at least one mandatory chance for deposit of court-fee after the exact amount of deficiency had been determined by the Court. This requirement of law not having been observed the impugned judgments are set aside. The case is remanded to the first appellate Court for hearing the appeal afresh on merits. There shall be no order as to costs.