' MUHAMMAD NASEEM, J.---Jam Ghulam Mustafa petitioner instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of the suit property in consideration for an amount of Rs,13,40,000. The suit was dismissed on 15-2-1994. He filed R.FA. No,20-1994/BWP which was admitted for regular hearing on 8-3-1994. Thereafter he withdrew the appeal on 16-5-1994 which was disposed of as withdrawn. He showed his desire that he would like to make an application for the refund of the court-fee in the sum of Rs,15,000 as he had withdrawn the appeal. He has filed the instant application for the refund of the court-fee in the sum of Rs,15,000 and this order is intended to dispose of the said application on merits.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State and gone through the record before us. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Bhola v.
Sardar Muhammad (PLD 1976 Lahore 1268) and Sh. Riaz-Ud-Din . Aqil-ur-Rehman Siddiqui and 4 others (PLD 1993 SC 76) and argued that Ghulam Mustafa petitioner is entitled to the grant of a certificate by this Court for the refund of the court-fee under section 13 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to him the aim of the State is to make justice available to its citizens without placing undue burden on them. He added that the appeal was admitted on 8-3-1994 which was disposed of as withdrawn on 16-5-1994 and thus no time of the Court was consumed. On the contrary learned counsel for the State relied on Trade well (Pakistan) Corporation v. Standard Bank Ltd. (PLD 1975 Karachi 178) and argued that the payment of the court-fees was the statutory duty of Ghulam Mustafa appellant-plaintiff who had levied the court-fee on the memorandum of appeal which could not be ordered by this Court to be refunded in view of the provisions of sections 13 to 15 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. The positive circumstance in favour of Ghulam Mustafa petitioner is that the appeal was admitted on 8-3-1994 which was disposed of as withdrawn on 16-5-1994. It means that time of this Court was not wasted practically and that it was at the earliest that this petitioner withdrew the appeal.
4. According to us the following view expressed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Sh. Riaz-ud-Din v. Aqil-ur-Rehman Siddique and 4 others (PLD 1993 SC 76) has respectfully to be followed by this Court which has resolved the controversy of the instant nature:-- "Under Article 2A of the Constitution of 1973 (as amended in 1985) the State is obligated to further the ends of social justice which, inter alia, obligate it to 'ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice'
(see. Article 37(d) of the Constitution). To require a party to pay court-fee in a proceeding where the parties have compromised their dispute outside the Court and decided to withdraw the proceedings pending before the Court, thereby not burdening it (the Court) to expend its valuable time in examining the case, in hearing' arguments in connection therewith, deliberating over the judgment thereon and then in formally taking time to write it; manifestly defeats the above mandate of the Constitution as it penalises the party for approaching the Court, instead, of assisting it to obtain inexpensive and speedy justice."
5. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that this application is allowed and the necessary certificate authorising Jam Ghulam Mustafa petitioner (appellant) to recover the amount of Rs,15,000 incurred by him on payment of court-fee on the memorandum of appeal is granted. He may collect the amount in accordance with law from the relevant quarter. However, there shall be no order as to costs.