GUL ZARIN KIANI, J.- This civil petition under Section 115 Civil P.C. Was against an order of the trial court dated 26.4.1993 by which extension in time for production of annual statement of net profits for determination of quantum of Court-fee payable on the plaint in the pre-emption suit was refused to the plaintiffs. It arises from the facts and circumstances enumerated below:- Syed Sabir Hussain Shah was owner of 99 kanals of land in village Ghuchli of Tehsil Ferozewala in District Sheikhupura. On 27.6.1992, above land was sold by him to Muhammad Boota and Muhammad Latif for sale-price of rupees four lacs. Sale was evidenced by a registered deed. Petitioners claimed pre-emption in respect of this sale and instituted a pre-emption suit for it, on 23.12.1992, in the civil court at Ferozewala. Plaint in the suit was assessed at Rs. 25,000/- for purposes of payment of court-fee and since the amount at which it was assessed was exempt for payment of court-fee, no court-fee was paid upon the plaint.
2. On 23-12-1992, the trial court ordered for registration of the civil suit and issued summons to the defendants for 21-1-1993. It also directed deposit of Zar-e-Soem by the plaintiffs and payment of court-fee before the next date of hearing fixed in the suit i.e. 21-1-1993. On the adjourned date of hearing, receipt showing the deposit of Zar-e-Soem was filed in the court but the plaintiffs prayed for extension in time for payment of court-fee. The application submitted by them for this purpose was adjourned to a future date, on 9-2-1993, for hearing of arguments on it. On this date of hearing, plaintiffs paid the maximum court-fee of Rs. 15,000/- in court. Thereupon, the trial court adjourned the suit for filing of written statement and the reply to the application submitted by the plaintiffs for extension in time. On 24.6.1993, the trial court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs for extension in time. It took the view that the application was not properly instituted. Therefore, it had no merits. However, it observed: "The objections of deficiency of court-fee shall be taken into consideration after settlement of issues because during the trial of this application the plaintiffs have filed the court-fee of Rs. 15,000/- on 9.2.1993, so the relevant objections and counter objections shall be taken into consideration at the time of final arguments". It is this order of the trial court that is sought to be revised by this court.
3. It is an agreed premise that the land subject matter of pre-emption suit was under cultivation any yielded produce. Therefore, the plaint of the preemption suit was required to be taxed with payment of court-fee assessed at fifteen times of the net-profits accruing from the land in the year preceding the presentation of the plaint before the trial court. Statement of annual net-profits was not annexed with the plaint. On the first date of hearing, the trial court ordered for making good the deficiency in court-fee. It did not determine the amount of court-fee payable on the plaint and left the matter in the hands of the plaintiffs. They sought for extension in time for preparation and production of statement of annual net-profits. While the application for extension in time was under the process of adjudication, the plaintiffs paid the maximum court-fee of Rs. 15,000/-. In this back-ground, the trial court dismissed their application which brought them in revision to this court. Vendee-defendants had submitted their written statement. They objected to an incorrect valuation of the suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. Their objection was reflected in issue No.1 settled by the trial court. Issue No.2 covered an objection to non-payment of court-fee in time fixed by the trial court. Issues on merits also existed. I am told that plaintiffs' affirmative evidence had been concluded and the suit is adjourned for the defendants' evidence. By now, it is settled that it is the duty of the court to determine the precise amount of court-fee payable on the document and allow an opportunity to the defaulting party to make good the discovered deficiency by a time specified for it and in default take recourse to punitive provisions of law in this behalf. Determination of quantum of court-fee payable on a document could not be entrusted by the court to a litigant party. It being a necessary part of adjudicatory process must be performed by the court itself and the function could not be abdicated in favour of a litigant. There are settled pronouncements by the Superior Courts on this point. In the instant case, the trial court had merely called upon the plaintiffs to pay the court-fee. It did not disclose its mind on the amount of court- fee payable by the plaintiffs. In my opinion, the direction was much defective and was not warranted by law. If the court had the feeling that the assessment of the suit for purposes of court- fee was incorrect, it was bound to determine it judicially for a mandate to the plaintiffs for meeting the discovered deficiency by a specified time. Instead, it gave a vague direction. Faced with it, the plaintiffs came up with an application for extension in time. Much effort is not required to observe that preparation of Fard-Khalis-Manafa consumes some time and in our system, is attended with some expense and difficulty also. None-the- less, in order to evince due diligence and interest in the pre-emption suit plaintiffs rushed soon to pay the maximum court-fee of Rs. 15,000/-, regardless of actual quantum of court-fee exitable on the plaint. An issue on the point was still to be resolved by the trial court. In case, it found that the plaint was deficiently assessed for purposes of court-fee, it was obliged to requisition the plaintiffs to make good the discovered deficiency.
Without a proper determination and a time for its payment, the plaintiffs could not be penalized.
Judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Siddique Khan and 2 others V. Abdul Shakur and another-PLD 1984 S.C. 289 was crystal clear on the point. It held the field. In Mst. Fatima Bibi and others V. Noor Dad and another-1994 SCM R 62. Principle in Siddique Khan's case was reiterated in the following observations by the Supreme Court. Their lordships observed: "It is not disputed that the enunciation of law of court-fee made by this Court in Siddique Khan's case holds the field.
According to this judgment, it cannot be said that it is only the duty of the litigant to find out that what is the proper court-fee and not of the public functionary concerned, and that it is mandatory for the Court to grant time to the plaintiff to supply the deficient court-fee; it is only on his contumacy that the penal provision as to the rejection of the plaint may be invoked". In the circumstances, rejection of application may not have served any useful purpose, more particularly, when the plaintiffs had volunteered to deposit the maximum amount of court-fee in the trial court.
Decision on question of court-fee rested in the hands of the trial court. It has yet to give its verdict in accordance with law declared by the Superior Courts. Therefore, I shall feel content to observe that the decision on the application sought to be revised shall not prejudice the final decision on issue covering the question of quantum of court-fee payable by the plaintiffs and their act of deposit of full amount of court-fee in the trial court before its final determination by it. With these observations, civil revision is disposed of, without an order for its costs in this court.