1. ' GUL ZARIN KIANI, J.---First appeal to this Court by the vendees-defendants in the pre-emption suit involved decision of a sole point about the effect of delayed payment of required court-fee on the plaint. We may straightaway proceed to state, with brevity, the case of the appellants presented for our scrutiny and once the facts are stated fairly, one is left to wonder what substantial issue of law deserving of adjudication by this Court survives at all, after number of decisions of the Supreme Court on the question of payability of court-fee on documents and its effect on limitation.
2. ' On 4-12-1978, Khalid Ahmed and Kamran Khan sold 107 kanals, 18 marlas of land at mauza Fateh Ullah in Tehsil Attock to Muhammad Saleem son of Abdul Ghafoor, Channan Din and Hazrat Din sons of Roshan for a price of Rs,60,000 through a registered sale-deed of even date. Muhammad Siddique pre-empted the sale on the ground of being a collateral of the vendors and expressed willingness to pay Rs,20,000 as the price for the land which, according to the averments in the plaint, was truly fixed and paid and was also the real market va ue of the land at the time of its sale.
3. Pre-emption suit was instituted on 4-12-1979 in the Civil Court at Attock. In para. 6 of the plaint, value for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was assessed at Rs,20,000 calculated on fifteen times of the net profits, accruing from the land in the year preceding the filing of the pre-emption suit. Vendees-defendants filed their defence and resisted the suit. It was submitted that suit was barred by limitation; the land was purchased for Rs,60,000 and in addition a sum of Rs,4,200 was spent on purchase of stamp papers, registration fee on the sale-deed and District Council fee which amount the defendants were entitled to be re-imbursed. Further, right to pre-empt was denied and valuation of the suit for purposes of court-fee questioned. It was stated that such value was erroneously worked out and the court-fee was payable in accordance with the statement of annual net profits--jhar paidawar.
4. ' On 1-12-1979, Reader to the Court reported that naqsha jhar paidawar was not annexed. On the same day, the trial Court passed an order that the suit be registered, summons be issued for 21-1- 1980, zar-i-panjum in the sum of Rs,12,000 be deposited before the date fixed, and after preparation of naqsha jhar paidawar, deficiency in court-fee be made good before the date indicated above.
5. ' On 21-1-1980, suit was adjourned to 6-2-1980 for submitting written statement and praparation and filing of naqsha jhar paidawar. Naib-Sadar Qanungo, who was present in Court stated that naqsha jhar paidawar shall be prepared in few days and filed in Court. On 6-2-1980, the trial Court noted that deficiency in the court-fee was made good. Thereupon, on 28-7-1980, the trial Court framed as many as seven issues but in regard to the objection relating to insufficiency of court-fee observed that:-- "Issue of deficiency in court-fee has not been framed because the plaintiff has made up the deficiency within time provided by the Court: ' It may be observed here that court-fee stamps of Rs,15,000 were filed in Court on 6-2-1982 and schedule of net profits indicated Rs,15,260 accruing from the land in the preceding year. Fifteen times of the net profits came to Rs,2,28,900. On 1-3-1982, the defendants filed an application for framing of a separate issue on the objection relating to payment of deficient court-fee contained in para. 6 of their written statement. On the same day, the trial Court dismissed the application by the order which reads as below:-- "I have gone through the record. The order of my learned predecessor dated 6-2-1980 mentions that the deficiency in the court-fee has been made good. Similarly, at the time of the framing of the issues on 28-7-1980, my learned predecessor had mentioned that the issue of deficiency in the court-fee has not been framed because the plaintiff has made up the deficiency within the time provided by the Court. Under these circumstances, the Court cannot, on this application for the framing of an additional issue, act as an appellate authority of my learned predecessor and besides this application, for obvious reasons, cannot be treated as review application.
6. Consequently, this application is rejected in limine."
7. ' Against this order, defendants preferred a revision to learned District Judge, Attock. It came to be heard by a learned Additional District Judge who allowed it on 6-7-1982 by directing that an issue about inadequacy of court-fee on the plaint be settled and decided after giving an opportunity for producing evidence to either party. It shall be advantageous to refer to para. 3 of his judgment because of its relevance to the succeeding events in the suit. It runs:-- "The present case was instituted on the last day of limitation dated 4-12-1979 and the impugned sale was effected on 4-12-1978. The report of the Ahlmad was called by the learned Civil Judge on 6-12-1979 who submitted the same with the objection that `naqsha jhar paidawar' has not been annexed with the plaint. On 6-12-1979, the learned Civil Judge passed an interim order that the plaintiff is directed to get the `naqsha jhar paidawar' prepared for purposes of court-fee before 21- 1-1980. On 21-1-1980, the learned Civil Judge was on leave and the Reader of the Court passed an order and adjourned the case to 6-2-1980. Since there is involved a question of limitation, the Reader could not adjourn the case from 21-1-1980 to 6-2-1980. He was not competent to extend the period as given above for submitting the `naqsha jhar paidawar'. This point needs further consideration by the learned trial Court. The order dated 6-2-1980 does not disclose whether the period between 21-1-1980 and 6-2-1980 was covered by limitation while giving such a longer adjournment by the Reader."
8. ' Upon receipt of records from the revisional Court, the trial Court added issue No,6-A which reads:- "Whether the plaintiff has made good the deficiency in court-fee within the period allowed by the Court? If not what is its effect? O.P. Parties."
9. ' Upon consideration of evidence led in the suit by parties, the trial Corut found for the pre-emptor and decreed pre-emption in his favour on 5-4-1983, subject to his paying Rs,63,400 (Rs,60,000 as sale price and Rs,3,400 as expenses incurred on sale By 3-5-1983 failing which the pre-emption suit was to stand dismissed. Against this judgment and decree of the trial Court, vendees appealed to this Court. It was admitted to hearing on 17-5-1983.
10. ' It may be stated at the outset that neither superior right of pre-emption nor the price payable for the land fixed in the impugned judgment is in dispute and as said in the opening paragraph of the judgment, only issue debated seriously at the hearing by Mr. Saraf was the effect of delayed payment of court-fee on the plaint in the pre-emption suit, and this point in view of weighty and binding pronouncements of Supreme Court in Mst. Parveen v. Mst. Jamsheda Begum and another PLD 1983 SC 227, Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another PLD 1984 SC 289, Sultan v. Azhar Ali Shah etc. 1984 FSC 565, Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,438-R of 1988, decided on 24th February, 1990 and the judgments of this Court in Karim Bakhsh v. Qadir Bakhsh and another PLD 1954 Lahore 228, Malik Jam Muhammad v. Shukar-ud-Din and 6 others 1980 CLC 186, Muhammad Sharif Khan v. Ghulam Farid and 4 others 1980 CLC 545, Muhammad Yasin and another v. Fajar Ali (Represented by 7 Legal Representatives) 1984 CLC 3428 is not re integra. Clear rule laid down by the Supreme Court to be followed in such matters is that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 (b) and (c), Civil Procedure Code for under-valuation or insufficiency of stamps unless the plaintiff is first given a chance to correct the valuation or to supply the deficient stamps as the case may be, within a time to be fixed by the Court and he fails to do so. Further, the Court ought not to pass a composite order requiring the valuation of the subject-matter in the plaint to be corrected and simulaneously additional court-fee to be paid on the correct valuation. Requiring a plaintiff to increase the valuation and further requiring him to pay additional court-fee are two distinct orders with different consequences arising out of their being not complied with. The Court must first determine with exactitude the amount of court-fee payable on a document filed before it and give an opportunity to a litigant to make good the deficit court- fee within a given time and if default takes place, it can then have recourse to the punitive provisions under Order VII, Rule 11 (b) and (c), Civil Procedure Code as the case may be. In the instant case, no such determination and consequent requisition was ever made by the trial Court.
11. Instead, the plaintiff made good the deficit court-fee on the plaint in accordance with the computation on the basis of fifteen times of the schedule of net profits prepared by the Naib-Sadar Qanungo. In this view, he was neither negligent nor contumacious in the matter of payment of court-fee to the State and could not be visited with the penalty for rejection of his plaint on that score. Question of limitation was not involved in the delayed payment of court-fee as held by the Supreme Court in the aforenoticed cases. Before closing, we must observe that the trial Court unnecessarily in a labyrinthine discussion under issue No,6-A tried to ignore the judgment dated 6- 7-1982 passed in revision taking it to be without jurisdiction, which otherwise, in our opinion was clearly binding upon him being a Court subordinate to it.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, though we confirm the judgment and decree of the Court below and dismiss the appeal but our reasons are different from those of it. However, in the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs of this appeal.
13. Records be returned. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.