' It is proposed to decide the Revision Petitions Nos.950 and 951 of 1995 through this common judgment as the controversy both factual and legal is exactly the same.
2. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner of agricultural land situated in village Mangowal Khurd, Tehsil Shahpur, District Sargodha. The respondents resisted the suit and then they moved an application for direction to the petitioner to make up the deficiency in court-fee on the plaint. It was pleaded that the suit should have been. Valued according to the value of land mentioned in the mutation of gift. The petitioner resisted the application. The trial Court after hearing the arguments accepted the application vide order dated 9-4-1995 and directed the petitioner to make up the deficiency in the court-fee before 17-5-1995, the next date of hearing. The petitioner assailed this order through present revision petition, which came up for limine hearing on 21-5-1995 when the notices were issued to the respondents and in the meanwhile, status quo was ordered. The respondents have appeared and contested the petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has impugned the order of the A.C.-I cancelling the mutation of gift in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the suit was to be valued in accordance with Article 11, Schedule II of the Court Fees Act as added by Punjab amendment. It is added that the court-fee was not payable on the market value.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that as the petitioner was claiming the ownership on the basis of gift deed, therefore, the suit should have been valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction in accordance with section 7(iv-A) as added by Punjab Finance Act, 1973. The learned counsel in this behalf has referred to the case of Bashir Ahmad v.
Mushtaq Ahmad (PLD 1985 Lahore 112).
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, the relevant provisions of Court Fees Act and precedent case. The perusal of the plaint appended as Annexure ' A' shows that neither the petitioner has challenged the order of the A.C.-I cancelling the mutation nor impleaded the A.C.-I as the defendant in the suit.
The plaint is without any prayer, however, in the title it is described as suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land and the defendants have no right or title to the same. The ownership has been claimed on the basis of gift, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is fairly and squarely covered by section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, therefore, value of the property is to be valued for the purpose of court-fee. The learned counsel for the respondents has rightly referred to the case of Bashir Ahmad (supra).
6. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in the revisional jurisdiction. The same is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in case the revision is dismissed then the petitioner may be allowed time to make up the deficiency in the court-fee as the time allowed by the Trial Court has expired during the pendency of the revision. The argument is against the record.
The petitioner was to make up the deficiency in the court-fee up to 17-5-1995 while the order of status quo was issued by this Court on 21-5-1995. This way, the time allowed by the Trial Court to make up the deficiency has already expired. In the circumstances the remedy of the petitioner is to move the learned trial Court for extension of time.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this revision petition. The same is dismissed with costs.