2004 PLP 2093 (YLR)

Sher Muhammad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th April, 2004. Haji Khalilur Rehman and another respondents/plaintiffs filed suit against the appellant/defendant No.1 and another in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge/Aala Illaqa Qazi, Swat for recovery of Rs.1,08,629.05. The said suit was resisted by defendant No.1 by filing written statement. The learned trial Court after framing issues, recording pro and contra evidence of the parties, decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,08,629.05 in favour of respondents/plaintiffs against the appellant/ defendant No.1 vide judgment and decree dated 26‑5‑2000. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, the appellant/defendant No.1 has filed the appeal in hand.

2. At the very outset, Mr. Sher Muhammad, the learned counsel representing the respondents, raised objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. His precise argument was that the suit for recovery of Rs.1,08,629.05 was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs which stood decreed in their favour vide judgment and decree dated 26‑5‑2000, therefore, the appeal against the said judgment and decree would lie in the Court of learned District Judge/Zilla Qazi, Swat and not before this Court.

3. When confronted with the above argument, Mr. Khalil Khan Khalil. The learned counsel representing the appellants/defendants, argued that the appeal be sent to the learned District Judge/Zilla Qazi, Swat for decision on merits.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

5. The admitted position in this case is that suit for recovery of Rs.1,08,629.05 was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs and they valued their suit for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs.1,08,629.05. It is by now settled that forum of appeal is to be determined according to valuation of the suit as mentioned in the plaint. This was held not only by this Court in Mehtab Khan and others v. Faiz Muhammad PLD 2003 Peshawar 46 but also by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Ayub and 4 others v. Dr. Obaidullah and 6 others 1999 SCMR 394 in the following words: "The important aspect is to note `value of the original suit' occurring in the above provision. `Value' has been defined in clause (h) of section 2 of the aforesaid Ordinance, which says that with reference to a suit, it means the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit. Plethora of case law discussed by the High Court in the impugned judgment fortifies the view that the forum of appeal is to be determined according to the value of the suit as mentioned in the plaint and the fixation of the price of the disputed property by the trial Court is totally irrelevant because the judgment is yet to attain finality. In this view of the matter, we are also of the view that the Additional District Judge erroneously returned the memo. of appeal. "

6. Since the respondents/plaintiffs had valued their suit for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs.1,08,629.05, therefore, the appeal against the impugned judgment and decree would lie in the Court of learned District Judge/Zilla Qazi, Swat who seized of the pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter, therefore, keeping in view the valuation made in the plaint and the above quoted dictum, I agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents and direct that the appeal be returned to the appellant for filing the same in the Court of competent jurisdiction. H.B.T./120/P Order accordingly.