2012 PLP 604 (MLD)

UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.

The impugned order dated 26-10-2009 by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, returns the appeal filed by the petitioners on the ground that the learned trial court's decree for possession along with mesne profit of Rs.6.95 million in favour of the respondents exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Additional District Judge to hear an appeal against the said decree. Reliance is placed on section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 ("Ordinance") for justifying the finding. The provisions of section 18 of the Ordinance are as follows:--

18. Appeals from Civil Judges :

( 1) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from a decree or order of a Civil Judge shall lie: (a) To the High Court if the value of the original suit in which the decree or order was made exceeds [twenty five hundred thousand rupees]; and (b) To the District Judge in any case. "In section 18, in subsection (1), in clause (a), for the words "two thousand" and words "twenty-five; hundred thousand" shall be substituted".

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments to interpret section 18(1) ibid. These are Muhammad Ayub and others v. Dr. Obaidullah and 6 others (1999 SCMR 394), Abdul Majid and others v. Muhammad Walayat Khan (1987 SCMR 1139) and National Bank of Pakistan v. Muhammad Akram Khan (2000 CLC 1493) which hold that forum of appeal is determined on the basis of value fixed in the plaint. On that view it is the submission of learned counsel that the suit for possession and mesne profit was valued at Rs.1.061 million whereas the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned District Judge extends to suit valuing upto Rs. 2.5 million. Consequently, the impugned order is wrong in law in returning the appeal on account of the value of the decree rather than the value of the suit.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has answered with the submission that once the value has been ascertained and determined by a court then the appellate forum is determined on the basis of the ascertained value and not the value originally fixed in the plaint. He relies on Fateh Ali v. Tassadad Hussain and 5 others (PLD 1975 Lahore 1094) and Abdul Majid v. Muhammad Afzal Khokhar (1992 CLC 1152). In the impugned judgment the learned Additional District Judge has relied upon judgment in the case of Farman Ali v. Mansoor Ali (PLD 1962 Dacca 214) to sustain his view. The opinion expressed in the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents about ascertainment of value by a court applies to cases where the value of the suit fixed in the plaint is under dispute. In such cases, the judicially ascertained value of the suit overrides the value that is fixed in the plaint to determine the appellate forum and the amount of court fee payable. In the present case there is no such dispute between the parties. Their issue, however, is whether the pecuniary jurisdiction of an appellate forum must exceed the value of the relief that may be granted by it. According to the precedents relied by the learned counsel for the respondents the value of a decree would not alter the forum of appeal. However, the afore noted Dacca judgment relied in the order impugned before us and also by the learned counsel for the respondents, takes a some at different view, which deserves consideration closely by the Court.

4. The operative findings given by the learned Dacca High Court as is follows:-- "Value of the original suit" means the value of the relief claimed in the original suit. What is the relief claimed in the original suit? It is a suit for mesne profits the amount of which is to be found by the Court to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff: If that is the relief then, the tentative valuation put by the plaintiff in the plaint is not the value of the original suit, but what has been found due by the Court from the defendants to the plaintiff and accepted by the plaintiff on payment of court-fee on the excess amount would be the value of the suit for the purpose of determination of the value of the appeal." Clearly the observations noted above connect the value of the suit to the quantum of relief of mesne profit granted by a court. Such a conclusion is arrived whilst interpreting section 21 of the Civil Courts Act (XII of 1887); which provides:-- "(1) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from a decree or order of a Subordinate Judge shall lie-- (a) to the District Judge where the value of the original suit in which or in any proceeding arising out of which the decree or order was made did not exceed five thousand rupees, and (b) to the High Court in any other case. (2) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from a decree or order of a Munsif shall lie to the District Judge."

5. It is plain from the above reproduced text that the provisions of section 21 of the Civil Courts Act, 1887 are different from the provisions of the presently relevant section 18(1) of the Civil Court Ordinance, 1961. Moreover, the meaning ascribed to the expression "value of original suit" in section (18)(1) of the Ordinance by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is confined to the valuation given in the plaint. Such a view is clear from the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Reference in this behalf is made to Ali Muhammad alias Ali Ahmed and others v. Mahbub Ahmad and others (1987 SCMR 1263) which applies the above principle to a suit for declaration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled that the value given in the plaint determines the forum of appeal. As the law on the point is clearly spelt out, there is no room for doubt on account of the judgment given by the Dacca High Court. Consequently, view taken by the learned appellate court is misconceived. Hence, this civil revision is allowed with no order as to costs. K.M.Z./N-50/L Revision accepted.