RDER MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.-- This application seeks review of judgment dated 22.11.2000 of a learned Division Bench of this Court, whereby RFA No. 144/86 was partly allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the judgment and decree dated 10.7.1986, impugned in the RFA, learned Trial Court had directed the appellant/plaintiff to pay Court- fee of Rs. 15,000/- by 31.7.1986 and that the said Court-fee was not paid till the said date and the plaint stood rejected rendering the appeal infructuous. -The precise contention is that the learned D.B. did not take notice of the said fact apparent on the face of the record which constitutes an error within the meaning of Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC necessitating the review of the judgment.
3. Learned counsel relies on the cases of Muhammad Nasarullah Vs. Muhammad Ayaz Khan and another (PLD 1975 Lahore 886), Farman Ali Dewan and another Vs. Munsur Ali and others (PLD 1962 Dacca 214), Sm. Charusila Dassi Vs. Abhilas Bauri and others (AIR 1936 Calcutta 804) and Jnanadasundari Shaha Vs. Madhabchandra Ma/a (AIR 1932 Calcutta 482).
4. We have gone through the records of the RFA. We find that while discussing issue No. 2 in para 36 of the judgment dated 10.7.1986 the learned Trial Court found that the value of the property involved in the suit and of the share being claimed by the plaintiff exceeds Rs. 2,00,000/- and as such a Court-fee of Rs. 15,000/- is payable. A-direction was issued to the plaintiff to pay the said amount of Court-fee by 31.7.1986.
5. We do not intend to discuss the validity of the said finding or the direction. Suffice it to say that an order passed under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC and its non-compliance by itself is not tantamount to rejection of the plaint. Order VII, Rule 12, CPC lays down in mandatory terms that a Court has to pass an order rejecting the plaint and stating reasons for the same. This of course was not possible for the learned Trial Court as after finally deciding the suit and dismissing the same it had become functus officio. It will also be noted that judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court is not even conditional that is to say the judgment and decree does not. provide the consequences of the failure on the part of the plaintiff to comply with the said direction.
6. Coming to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner the cases from Dacca High Court and Calcutta High Court dealt with the matter of rejection of a memo. of appeal and are not relevant to the present controversy. However, in the said case of Muhammad Nasarullah Mr. Justice Aftab Hussain (as his Lordship then was) discussed the matter in detail. It was concluded that a decree with a condition that the plaint shall stand rejected in case direction contained therein for payment of Court-fee is not complied with is proper. However, his Lordship did opine with reference to the case-law discussed therein that a direction issued for payment of Court-fee by a Court while dismissing a suit is without jurisdiction for the simple reason that on passing of the final judgment in the suit the Court could not continue the process of adjudication in the procedural matters of the suit thereof. We have already stated above that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court was not conditional and thus nothing turns in favour of the petitioner on the basis of said judgment in the case of Muhammad Nasarullah.
7. This Review App ication accordingly is without any force and does not make out a case for review of said judgment within the meaning of Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC. It is accordingly dismissed.