' The applicant filed suit against the respondent for possession by pre-emption of suit-land purchased by him vide registered sale-deed dated 13-2-1989 for a consideration of Rs,1,45,000. The contention of the applicant was that the land had in fact been sold for Rs,60,000. The suit was contested and after a trial the learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 31-7-1997. A first appeal filed by the applicant was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal who allowed the same and decreed the suit of the applicant subject to deposit of Rs,1,56,600 in the trial Court. This amount was made up of Rs,1.45,000 as price and Rs,11,600 as sale expenses. Against the said judgment and decree, dated 15-2-2002 the applicant filed a Civil Revision No,187 of 2000. The civil revision was taken up for hearing on 15-3-2000 when it was prayed on behalf of the applicant that the proceedings be converted into an regular second appeal as the suit was filed in the year 1989. The prayer was allowed and the proceeding was registered as Regular Second Appeal No,2 of 2000. Since the only prayer made in the regular second appeal was that the sale price be reduced by Rs,65,000, I directed the applicant to pay court-fee on the said amount which was calculated at Rs,4,875. The direction was to be complied with before 12-4-2000 and it was further provided that in case the court-fee is not paid, the regular second appeal shall stand dismissed. The case came up before me on 12-4-2000 when the learned counsel reported that the court-fee has not been paid. No reason or cause was stated for the non-compliance of the order. Consequently, the regular second appeal was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel with reference to the case of Ilahi Baldish and others v. Mst. Bilqees Begum (PLD 1985 SC 393) argues that since it was a pre-emption suit, the court-fee had to be paid in accordance with the value determined under section 7(v)(c) of Court Fees Act, 1870. According to the learned counsel the impugned order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as it is violative of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is liable to be reviewed.
3. I have stated the necessary details of the proceedings above. I have examined the said judgment in the case of "Ilahi Bakhsh and others". There is no doubt that so far as pre-emption suit (meaning a suit for possession of land by pre-emption) is concerned, the same has to be valued in accordance with section 7(v) of the said Court Fees Act, 1870. Thus where a decree for possession by pre-emption itself is questioned or is claimed then the suit or the appeal has to be valued in the said terms. However, as stated by me above-, in the present appeal, the applicant was not claiming a decree for possession. On the other hand, the decree had already been granted to him by the learned Court of the first appeal. His claim was that the sale price be reduced by Rs,65,000.
The said relief does not fall within the said provision of Court Fees Act of 1870. It is settled law that an appeal in which the appellant asked the Court to reduce by a certain sum, the amount payable by him under the orders of the first Court the said sum represents the value of the subject-matter of the appeal and it is upon that sum, that he must pay the ad valorem fee specified in Article 1 of the 1st Schedule to the Court Fees Act, 1870. Reference be made to a D.B. Judgment of this Court in the case of Haji Ghulam Qadir v. Abdul Qadir (PLD 1952 BJ 62).
4. No case, therefore, stands made out for review of the impugned judgment. This review application is accordingly dismissed in limine.