MUHAMMAD ARIF, J. -- Through this common order we intend to dispose of the above petitions seeking leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revisions Nos. 1847-D and 1848-D of 1987 dismissing the same as below:- "5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, throughout, the operation of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, had remained suspended previously by the First Appellate Court on 18.11.1987, and thereafter, when this Court suspended the judgments and decrees of the Appellate Court on 2.2.1988; in these circumstances, the respondents were not in a position to make up the deficiency in the payment of Court-fee. Even 'otherwise, the question of deficiency in the payment of Court-fee, is a matter between the State and the litigant, and this should not be allowed as a weapon to non-suit a party, who is otherwise successful on the merits of the case.
6. In view of the above, I do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that because of the non-making up the deficiency in the payment of Court-fee, the suit for possession filed by the respondents, stands dismissed. No other point has been argued.
2. Mr. M.D. Tahir, learned ASC appearing in support of these petitions has vehemently contended that the learned Judge in Chambers was not quite right in rendering findings on issue No. 5 which reads thus:- "5. Whether the suit has been incorrectly valued for the purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction? If so what is the correct valuation and its effect? OPD"
According to him, the other side failed to make up the deficiency in the payment of Court-fee to the tune of Rs. 3951.80: ................................ (i) firstly, within a period of 30-days from the date of decree .......................................................................... And
(ii) lastly, within 15-days of the withdrawal of their appeal on 21.1.1989 with the direction to make up the deficiency in the payment of Court-fee ................................................ Therefore, the other side's suit should have been dismissed by the High Court. His precise plea was that the suit for possession should have been dismissed by the learned Judge in Chambers by bringing to bear the effect of the other side's failure to make up the deficiency in the Court-fee to the tune of Rs. 3951.80 and the decision to the contrary and that too by providing another opportunity to the respondents to make up the above deficiency within a period of 1-month from 10.4.2001, the date of the impugned judgment of the High Court, cannot be sustained.
3. We are afraid the plea being raised is a simple reiteration of similar plea which was duly noticed, considered and repelled by the learned Judge in Chambers with emphaSis upon the admitted position that the operation of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court remained suspended: ................................................... (i) by 1st Appellate Court's order on 18.11.1987 .................. And
(ii) by High Court on 2.2.1988 .............................................. Even the observations made by the learned Judge in Chambers to the effect that the question of deficiency in the payment of Court-fee is a matter between the State and a litigant, have not been shown to be suffering from any infirmity in law whatsoever.
4. No other point was urged.
5. These petitions are sans merit and are liable to be dismissed. So be it. Leave is refused.