ABDUL WAHID Versus GHULAM HAIDER

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 24‑9‑1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a vendee's Regular Second Appeal arising out of suit for pre‑emption was dismissed.

2. The respondents had filed a suit for pre‑emption with deficient court‑fee. By the order dated 29‑9‑1966 they were allowed time up to 14‑11‑1966 to make up the deficiency in the court‑fee. The plaintiffs made up the deficiency by the said date. Despite that the plaint was rejected on the ground that the deficiency should have been made up by 12th of November, 1966, and not 14th of November, 1966. The first Appellate Court (and the High Court) interpretted the order dated 29‑9‑1966 as permitting the plaintiffs to supply the deficiency in court‑fee upto 14‑11‑1966. Accordingly the First Appellate Court set aside the order of rejection of the plaint and restored the suit. The High court dismissed petitioners' (vendees') Second Appeal against the First Appellate order, therefore, the vendees have now sought leave to appeal.

3. Learned counsel has not disputed the fact that the date for supplying the deficiency in court‑fee was 14‑11‑1966 and not 12‑11‑1966. He, however, has contended that the suit was filed at the end of period of limitation and despite that proper court‑fee was not paid. Not only this the plaintiffs had made an application that they would supply the court‑fee after getting the statement of net profit. All this, according to the learned counsel could and should have been done earlier.

4. The argument of the learned counsel runs counter to law laid down by this Court in the case of Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another P L D 1984 S C 289. The plaintiffs A had a statutory right under Order VII, Rule 11 for grant of time to supply the deficiency of court‑fee. The impugned judgments are un exceptionable. No justification has been made out for interference. Leave to `appeal accordingly, is refused.

5. M.Y.H. Leave refused.