A plaintiff-appellant can make up the deficiency in the court-fee before the first appellate court and the case can be remanded for a decision on merits.

1. It is not necessary to advert to the facts and the merits of the case in this regular second appeal. The plaintiff-appellant had brought a suit seeking a declaration that the sale by public auction of the suit property situated in the Hussainpura suburb of the Amritsar town was invalid, without jurisdiction and therefore not binding on the plaintiff-appellant. The suit was contested and on the pleadings of the parties apart from others the following issue No. 1 which was treated as preliminary was framed:-

-

"Whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction?"

The Trial Court came to the finding that the suit fell within Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act and the plaintiff was, therefore, bound to pay advalorem court-fee on the market value of the property in dispute. Consequently the other issues were not adverted to upon merits and the plaintiff-appellants was directed to make up the deficiency on the basis of the market value of the property on the 8th April, 1968. However, the appellant failed to pay the court fee and correct the valuation of the suit in spite of two or three adjournments given by the Trial Court. Acting under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, the Trial Court then rejected the plaint with costs on the 22nd May, 1968.

2. Aggrieved by the order above said the plaintiff-appellant went up in appeal which came up before the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, exercising enhanced appellate powers. Therein a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that the memorandum of appeal had itself been insufficiently stamped and the appeal be rejected on that ground alone. The first Appellate Court opined that the view taken by the Trial Court that the case fell within Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court fees Act was apparently correct and therefore held that the memorandum of appeal was insufficiently stamped. It further saw no ground to allow the plaintiff-appellant to make good the deficiency in the court-fee before it and rejected the appeal on this preliminary ground.

3. The appellant has now come up against the order above said of the first Appellate Court.

4. Curiously enough in this Court again a preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondents by Mr. Gandhi that the present second appeal also had not been adequately stamped and that the appeal be rejected on this ground alone. On a close perusal of the record, however, it appears that this objection which was rather strenuously pressed by the learned counsel had been raised under some misapprehension. The first Appellate Court had rendered its judgment on 29th January, 1972. The present appeal was filed in this Court on the 18th February, 1972. The Court-fee paid thereon was only Rs. 14.00. The Registry, therefore, raised an objection that the memorandum of appeal was insufficiently stamped and the appeal was returned to be refiled after complying with the objection. On the 8th Mach, 1972, however, the deficiency in the Court-fee amounting to Rs. 160.40 P. was duly made up by the appellant after giving a detailed account of the deficiency which was to be made up. This was accepted by the office and the case was them placed before the Motion Bench on the 9th of March, 1972, and after a days adjournment was admitted on the 10th of March, 1972. It is evident therefore, that in the present Court the adequate Court-fee has been duly paid and that too within the prescribed period of limitation. The preliminary objection, therefore, must be rejected.

5. On the issue as to what was the court-fee payable by the appellant before the first Appellate Court there does not appear now to be any serious controversy. In Uday Chand V/s. Mohan Lal, 59 Pun LR 265=(AIR 1957 Punj 315) the Division Bench authoritatively held that where a plaint had been rejected under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11, then the Court-fee payable on appeal is an ad valorem court-fee on the difference between the co