1. Through this civil revision, the plaintiff/ petitioner has challenged the judgment of the trial Court dated 30-10-2000, whereby, the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner has been dismissed as he had failed to pay the requisite court-fee within time granted by the Court, and has further challenged the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Sahiwal Camp at Chechawatni dated 8-6-2002, whereby, time-barred appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the basis of agreement to sell allegedly executed by defendant No.1 Nazir Ahmad in favour of the plaintiff to sell the suit-land in favour of the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.1,20,000 on 31-3-1998 under the alleged agreement, the plaintiff paid part of the sale price and only balance of Rs.36,500 was due from the plaintiff/petitioner, when the defendant No.1 sold the suit-land in favour of defendant No.2 namely: Sardar Muhammad for consideration of Rs.1,95,000 and in this respect Mutation No. 478 was attested on 8-5-1999. Hence, the plaintiff/petitioner filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction on 25-9-1999. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application for temporary injunction. The defendants tiled written statement to contest the suit and also filed reply to the application for temporary injunction. The trial Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction vide its order dated 30-9-2000 and further the trial Court found that the plaintiff is not in possession of suit-land and it is a suit for specific performance, hence, directed the plaintiff/petitioner to affix the court-fee m the market value of the suit-land by the next date of hearing, failing which the suit shall stand dismissed. The case was adjourned to 30-10-2000 with the above directions. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner on 30-10-2000 as the plaintiff/petitioner had failed to comply with the direction of the trial Court dated 30-9-2000.
3. According to the petitioner, in fact he had been seriously ill since 30-8-2000 up to 30-11-2000, hence, on 23-12-2000, the appellant filed a time-barred appeal before the District Judge, Sahiwal.
4. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal as barred by time on the ground that the appellant has failed to explain the delay from 30-11-2000 to 23-12-2000. Hence, this civil revision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial Court illegally dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner as under the law for want of payment of requisite court-fee, the plaint could be rejected under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. And suit could not be dismissed. Further argued that the petitioner had become seriously ill during the period from 30-8-2000 up to 20-11-2000, hence, non- payment of court-- fee within time granted by the Court was not in the control of the petitioner.
6. Further argued that the order of the trial Court dismissing the suit is void and without lawful authority as the trial Court could reject the plaint under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. And could not dismiss the suit, hence, the order of dismissal of suit passed by the trial Court is void and without lawful authority. Further argued that there is no limitation against void order, hence, appellate order is also illegal; in this respect, reliance is placed upon judgment reported in Maqsood Ahmad v. Tahira Parveen 2002 M LD 636.
7. Heard. Record perused.
8. There is no cavil to the legal proposition that in the case in hand, the trial Court could pass an order for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. As the plaintiff/petitioner had not made good the deficiency in the court-fee despite clear direction of the trial Court vide order dated 30-9-2001.
9. However, it is only a technical objection otherwise the rejection of plaint under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C.
10. Also amounts to decree and is appealable as decree. It is well-established law that an illegal order has also to be challenged before proper forum within time, otherwise right accrues to the other side. Hence, admittedly, there was no appeal before District Judge well within time. Moreover, the appeal before the District Judge filed by the petitioner was not proper appeal in the eye of law as admittedly the petitioner had again valued his appeal as Rs.24,000 with mala fide and did not pay the court-fee as required by the trial Court. I am conscious of the fact that payment of the court- fee is the matter between the litigant and the State but with the passage of time, right also accrues to the defendant/respondent and that cannot be taken away simply on the ground that negligent party is willing to pay the court-fee. There is a technical mistake in the order of the trial Court. The order of the trial Court be read as rejection of the-plaint instead of dismissal of the suit, while the judgment of lower Appellate Court dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as barred by time is in accordance with the law and does not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. This civil revision has no merit, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed to limine.