' Mst. Amir Begum petitioner was admittedly the owner of the suit property which is said to have been given to Manzoorr Ahmad respondent as a tenant who obtained its possession during the year 1989. She is said to have made sale of the suit property in favour of Manzoor Ahmed respondent through sale-deed No,564 registered on 20-3-1989. Feeling aggrieved she instituted her suit on 25-3-1990 to obtain a declaration to the effect that she is an owner in possession of the suit property and that the registered sale-deed dated 20-3-1989 was false, fictitious,' without jurisdiction and inoperative which is liable to be cancelled. She prayed for the consequential relief to the effect that the respondent may be restrained from interfering in her rights of ownership and possession and from alienating the same. The suit was resisted by the respondent who denied the fact that he was inducted as a tenant on the suit property by Mat. Amir Begum petitioner. He claimed to be the transferee of the suit property for consideration on the basis of the registered sale-deed dated 20-3-1989. He maintained that without the proposed consequential relief of possession the suit could not proceed which was insufficiently valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. The issues were framed. After fulfledged hearing the Trial Court did not accept the version of the petitioner-plaintiff and dismissed her suit. It was specifically held while disposing of issues Nos.6 an 7 that value of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was Rs,2 lac and that Mst. Amir Begum was liable to pay the court-fee on the said amount of Rs,2 lac. Mat. Amir Begum has preferred the appeal. Before admitting the appeal the learned District Judge directed on 20-11-1994 Mst. Amir Begum petitioner to make up the deficiency in court-fee amounting to Rs,15,000 by or before 22-12-1994. He relied on Nazir Ahmad and another v. Muhammad Tahir and another (PLD 1992 Lah 89) in this regard.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 20-11-1994 passed by the District Judge Mst. Amir Begum petitioner has filed this revision petition which is at the motion stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Amir Ali v. Additional District Judge, etc. (1989 MLD 32) and argued that it is not the matter 'falling under section 4(a) of the Court Fees Act as the claim of Mst. Amir Begum is not based on the alleged sale, gift, exchange or mortgaged and for that reason she is not liable to pay the court-fee as directed by the District Judge. It is added that the suit instituted by the petitioner is to obtain a declaratory decree with consequential relief and the court-fee fixed by her according to her own discretion is correct. On the contrary the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant is that the suit was finally disposed of by the Trial Court which held that the value of the suit of for the purpose of court-fee was Rs,2 lac and the petitioner (appellant before the District Judge) has no alternative but to fix the court-fee at the value of Rs,2 lac i.e, in the sum of Rs,15,000 as directed by the District Judge. In this regard he relied on Nazir Ahmad and another v. Muhammad Tahir and another (PLD 1992 Lah 89).
3. My view is that the matter before this Court is subtle as well as ticklish. The appeal has not been admitted by the District Judge as yet who has passed the order for the payment of court-fee on the ground that the valuation fixed by the petitioner (appellant) in her plaint has been changed by the Trial Court and in view of the relevant finding in the matter the valuation for appeal would be the one fixed by the Trial Court. The relevant issues Nos.6 and 7 are yet to be disposed of by the District Judge. In the aforesaid ruling (1989 MLD 34) the Trial Court had passed the order for making up deficiency in court-fee while the suit was pending and the order was sustained which was set aside in the writ petition. The distinguishing factor in the matter-in hand is that the Trial Court has held that the liability of the petitioner-plaintiff is to pay the court-fee on the value of Rs,2 lac which obviously comes to Rs,15,000. Thus, the authority (PLD 1992 Lah. 89) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant shall prevail being late in time as well as directly applicable.
Another aspect of the matter is that in case the findings of the Trial Court are set aside on issues Nos.6 and 7 by the District Judge the amount spent by Mst. Amir Begum petitioner for purchasing the court-fee in the sum of Rs,15,000 can be returned to her in accordance with law. If the assertion raised by the petitioner through her learned counsel is given the weight then it would be nothing but disposal of issues Nos.6 and 7 by this Court in her favour even though the appeal is still pending before the District Court which has even not been admitted as yet.
4. In view of my aforesaid findings, it is held that the impugned order dated 20-11-1994 passed by the District Court is not hit by any of the ingredients mentioned under section 115, C.P.C. And that no material irregularity has been committed thereof. However, the District Judge shall have to proceed as expressed (supra) with respect to the disposal of issues Nos.6 and 7. Consequently this revision petition is dismissed.
5. Mst. Amir Begum is allowed a period of thirty days from today to make up the deficiency in court-fee amounting to Rs,15,000 before the District Judge, Khanewal failing which she shall be liable to meet the penalty mentioned under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. Read with' section 141, C.P.C.
6. In view of the legal complexity involved in the matter the parties are left to bear their own costs.
' Petitioner in person.
' MUHAMMAD NASIM CHAUDHRY, J.---On 14-1-1996 while disposing of Civil Revision No,20 of 1995 the petitioner was directed to make up the deficiency of court-fee amounting to Rs,15,000 before the District Judge, Khanewal within a period of 30 days failing which she was made liable to meet the penalty narrated under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 141, C.P.C. She has filed this petition seeking extension in time for the purpose of submission of the aforesaid court-fee on the ground that she became seriously ill and that she could not collect the amount.
2. Is petition is supported by an affidavit.
3. This petition is a female and keeping in view the recitals of the application the same is accepted and the petitioner is allowed to make up the deficiency of court-fee till 31-3-1996 failing which she shall be liable to face the legal consequence as already expressed in the matter.
4. If the District Court has already applied the penal provisions under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, this order shall remain redundant and shall be considered as inoperative.
5. Copy dasti subject to usual charges, if any.