Saeed Ahmad son of Ghulam Jilani, respondent, was in possession of Shops No3.3 and 4 belonging to the Auqaf Department near Janazgah, Bahawalpur as their tenant. Earlier he used to pay the rent thereof to the Mutwali of Janazgah and was running business of Dry Cleaning in these shops under the name and style of Ikram Dry Cleaners. After the property belonging to the Janazgah was taken over by the Auqaf Department, the respondent became their tenant. There was a piece' of land measuring 18' K 14-1/2' quite adjacent to Shop No.3 and there existed a well in this plot which was out of order. In the year 1969, Saeed Ahmad requested the Department to give him this plot also on tenancy and sought their permission for rebuilding this shop after including the aforesaid adjacent plot by filling in the well therein. Since this Janazgah is situated within the limits of Cantonment Bahawalpur, therefore, after obtaining necessary permission from the Cantonment Board and the Auqaf Department and getting the site plan sanctioned, he erected a huge shop thereupon in the year 1970 after allegedly spending an amount of Rs.74,494. He also installed a water pump in these premises in order to supply water to the Janazgah, as stipulated. On 29-1- 1976, however, the Auqaf Department passed an order directing Saeed Ahmad to vacate these shops. He was, therefore, obliged to file a declaratory suit against the Auqaf Department claiming therein that he had attained perpetual tenancy rights and the Department had no authority to dispossess him. This suit was finally decreed in his favour by the Civil Judge, Bahawalpur on 3-1- 1983 with the direction that he would not be evicted from the shops otherwise than in due course of law and without the payment of compensation in connection with the expenditures incurred by him on the construction.
2. The Department, however, ignored this judgment and decree and demolished the slops of Saeed Ahmad on 11-3-4984 by bulldozing the same without giving him any show-cause notice. He brought a suit against them for the recovery, of a sum of Rs.1,00,000 as damages. This suit was vehemently contested by the department but after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances, learned Civil Judge, seized of the matter, finally decreed it in favour of the plaintiff/respondent on 21-1-1992.
3. Feeling aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the Department filed an appeal which was admitted for regular hearing by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur on 14-3-1992.
4. It was as late as on 3-5-1995 that the learned Additional District Judge observed that the appellant was required to make payment of court-fees to the tune of Rs.7,500. He, therefore, directed the appellant to make up the payment thereof up to 31-5-1995. The case was then adjourned to 1-6-1995 for further proceedings. On that date, the learned counsel for the appellant moved an application under section 148, C.P.C. For enlargement of time for making up the deficiency in the court-fees. The learned Additional District Judge adjourned the case to 4-6-1995 for the submission of written reply and arguments. After hearing the parties on that date and giving due consideration to the reasons put forth by the appellant for having failed to make the payment of court-fees, the case was adjourned to 14-6-1995 and the appellant was directed to make up the deficiency up to 13-6-1995. The appellant failed to do the needful even by that date. When the case came up before the learned Additional District Judge on 14-6-1995, the appellant remained un- represented and after observing that since the appellant had failed to comply with the orders of the Court, dated 3-5-1995 and 4-6-1995 with regard to the payment of the court-fees, the memo.
Of appeal was liable to be rejected, he rejected the same accordingly. It appeal's that while this order was being passed, the learned counsel for the appellant also put in appearance.
5. Dissatisfied with this order and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, the Auqaf Department and the District Manager Auqaf, Bahawaipur have filed the present civil revision.
6. It is interesting to note that after assailing the order regarding rejection of memo of appeal on account of non-payment of the requisite court-fees, the petitioners have elaborated the facts of the case and assailed the findings of the learned trial Judge also on merits. With regard to their failure to make the payment of court-fees, they have confined themselves to contending that the Department sought sanction from its head office which the head office was pleased to accord but since the clerks of all the Departments in the Punjab went to strike the learned counsel for the petitioners could get sanction for the purchase of court-fees/stamps from the treasury on 12-6- 1995 and as such the learned Additional District Judge had passed the impugned order in a hasty manner which was liable to be set aside.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for respondent Ch. Naseer Ahmad, Advocate at pre-admission stage. The learned counsel for the petitioners had relied on Muhammad Nawaz Khan and another v. Makhdoom Syed Ghulam Mujtaba and another PLD 1970 SC 37 ' and Haji Khurshid Ahmad v. Mehr Salabat Khan, Additional District Judge, Sahiwai and 2 others 1992 CLC 2270 for contending that the learned Additional District Judge was not justified in refusing to grant further enlargement. I have had the -privilege of going through both these judgments and I am afraid, the petitioners cannot seek any assistance from the law laid down therein. In PLD 1970 SC 37, it has been held that where the plaintiff is required to correct valuation of relief claimed in a suit, he shall further be required to supply the requisite stamp paper and on compliance it shall have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance. In 1992 CLC 2270, it had been laid down that the lower Appellate Court had rightly called upon the petitioner for demanding the additional court-fees on memorandum of appeal and the petitioner had no acceptable excuse for not paying the same in time fixed and later extended by the Court. The latter authority in fact helps the respondent.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, urged that the petitioners were negligent and indolent right from the beginning. They took as many as 52 days in filing the appeal and during this period, they could have conveniently purchased the court-fees etc. Which they intentionally failed to do. They were not vigilant about their liability to pay the court-fees during the next more than 3 years and kept silent up to 3-5-1995 on which date it was pointed out that they were liable to make the payment of court-fees. According to him, the petitioners were, therefore, not at all justified in claiming that the learned Additional District Judge rejected the memo of appeal in a hasty manner.
9. I have gone through the case-law on the point. There is no denying the fact that plaint or memo of appeal cannot be treated as properly presented so long as the proper court-fee is not paid. Mst.
Saddiq-un-Nisa v. Khan Sahib Agha Muhammad Sultan Mirza PLD 1972 Kar. 103, Lal Shah v.
Muhammad Ishaq PLD 1977 Lah. 1058 and Muhammad Suleman v. Ehsan Ali PLD 1983 Kar. 537 can be referred to with advantage on this point.
10. The mere fact that the petitioners in this case are the Government functionaries and they required sufficient time to go through certain formalities for obtaining the sanction of the head office does not provide for a different treatment because the Government Departments and the citizens have to be treated alike as laid down in The West Pakistan Agriculture Development Corporation v. Soomar and 2 others PLD 1984 Kar. 190 and no discrimination can be made between the two in matter of delay.
The following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Province of East Pakistan v.
Abdul Hamid Darji 1970 SCMR 558 though in a different context viz. With regard to limitation, provide guidelines in such like cases: - ... The Government cannot claim to be treated in any manner differently from an ordinary litigant, because of the fact that the Government enjoys unusual facilities for the preparation and conduct of their cases and its resources are much larger. If in spite of these facilities the Government cannot comply with the requirements of the law of limitation, then it is for it to take steps to have that law changed and not to ask the Courts to give a different interpretation to its provisions."
11. In fact, instead of rejecting the memo of appeal, the learned Appellate .Court should have dismissed the same because provisions of Order 7; rule 11, C.P.C. Are applicable to suits and not to appeals. It was so held in Mubarak v. Phullan and 7 others 1980 CLC 485 Lahore and Suleman Khan v. Nazar Khan and another 1983 CLC 1502 Lahore. The following observations made in 1980 CLC 485 should not be lost sight of while dealing with such a case: --- "There can be no two opinions on the proposition that the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Do not apply to the memorandums of appeal. It is well established that if an insufficiently stamped memorandum of appeal is presented before a Court of Appeal, no proper appeal shall be deemed to have been filed."
12. Had the petitioners made the payment of deficient court-fees, the memorandum of appeal would have been validated retrospectively from the date on which it had been so filed. In the instant case, however, the insufficiently stamped memorandum of appeal does not become a memorandum of appeal and is just a piece of paper. The, appeal was, therefore, liable to be dismissed on account of the failure of the petitioners Ito make the payment of the court-fees.
13. With these observations, finding no merit in this revision petition, I cannot but dismiss the same in limine and it is accordingly dismissed. 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.