1986 PLP 342 (MLD)

‑‑‑S.7‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11‑‑Pre‑emption suit‑‑Market value, determination of‑‑Determination of market value of subject‑matter depends upon a number of facts and circumstances‑ Valuation in plaint normally determined jurisdiction of‑ a Court‑‑Court can interfere to correct valuation given in plaint where it was based upon misrepresentation or fraud‑‑Mere fact that some stray statements or admissions had been mode by parties or witnesses would not amount to an adjudication of market value. S.Zafar for Appellant. Muhammad Ali Sheikh for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18Ch December, 1985. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Mr.Tehseen Ahmed Bhatti, Additional Sessions Judge, Nawabshah whereby he dismissed the appeal of the appellant and upheld the judgment of Mr. Abdul Gani Gazdar, Civil Judge Moro, decreeing the respondent's suit for pre‑emption against the appellant. The appellant had filed a suit for pre‑emption alleging that the land in suit was jointly owned by him with his brother Muhammad Sharif and four sisters and mother in specified shares. The land was not partitioned and was looked after by the appellant on half of all the sharers. On 10‑9‑1974, the abovementioned 3 sister sold their shares to the respondent by registered sale‑deed for Rs.14,840 falsely showing the price thereof at the amount of Rs.27,500 in order to discourage the pre‑emptor. The appellant on coming to know of the sale made the requisite demands and on the refusal of the defendant filed this suit. The respondent contested the suit. He claimed to have purchased it for Rs.27,500 and that it was its real price. He also stated that he was the Hari of the land and in occupation thereof since before the purchase and, therefore, he was entitled to preferential right of pre‑emption. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Civil Judge framed a number of issues and after trial thereof came to the conclusion that .the respondent was entitled to pre‑emption but the price which he had to pay was Rs.27,

500. The appellant filed an appeal against the said judgment before the learned Additional District Judge, but he dismissed the same as shown above. Against the said judgment of the Additional District Judge, the appellant has come to this Court in appeal. I have heard Mr.S.Zafar, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Ali Sheikh, Advocate for the respondents. Mr.S.Zafar, has pressed his appeal on a short point. He has submitted that according to section 9 of West Pakistan Civil Court Act, 1962 and the notification issued in pursuance thereof, pecuniary jurisdiction of a Second Class Civil Judge, is limited to Rs.15,

000. Section 7 (vi) of the Court Fee Act provides that the suit to enforce a right of pre‑emption will be valued according to clause (v) of this section. Section 7 clause (v) has been substituted by Sind Ordinance XIII of 1974 in place of the clause which was existing before it. The substituted clause provides that the market value of the land etc. shall be deemed to be the value of the subject‑matter. He, therefore, contended that the Court had decreed the suit of pre‑emption and held that its actual price was Rs.27,

500. Hence the value of the suit for the purposes of court‑fee as well as jurisdiction will be Rs.27,500 which is beyond with jurisdiction of a second class Civil Judge. Hence according to him the learned Civil judge, should have returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. I do not agree with this contention of Mr. S.Zafar. The respondent had in his plaint alleged that the actual price at which the land was sold was Rs.14,840 and not Rs.27,

500. Hence, the mere fact that in this particular case the land was shown to have been sold at Rs.27,500 does not necessarily mean that this amount was its market value. It has not been proved that the market value of this land is over Rs.15,

000. Neither any such issue was framed nor the parties were given any opportunity to lead any evidence on this point. Moreover, the law does not require a Court to turn away a suit simply because its jurisdiction is doubtful. Even it is, assumed for the sake of argument that the price at which the land was sold is Rs.27,500 then also the market value of same was to be calculated either according to the statement in the plaint which is below Rs.15,000 or after an inquiry or trial, which has not been held on this particular point. The mere fact that some stray statements or admissions have been made by the parties or the witnesses and have been referred in the judgment will not amount to an adjudication of the market value. Hence, it was not beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge. The determination of the market value of the subject‑matter depends upon a number of facts and circumstances. The valuation in the plaint normally determines the jurisdiction of Court, which is determined in accordance with the Suits Valuation Act, 1887. The Court can interfere to correct the valuation given in the plaint where, it is based upon misrepresentation or fraud. The provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. contain the power of Court for correction of the valuation. The defendant's plea in his written statement is not to determine the jurisdiction of the Court. If during the pendency of the suit the value of subject‑matter increased, the Court will not lose jurisdiction because jurisdiction once obtained is not taken away by increase in the value of the subject‑matter and the Court can proceed with the adjudication of the suit. Reference in this connection may be made to P L D 1965 Lah.

359. In another ruling reported in P L D 1962 Dacca 14 it was held that in awarding the decree for further main profits or accounts, the Court can award an amount in excess of its pecuniary jurisdiction. I am, therefore, of the view that there is no substance in the objection raised by the appellant as to the jurisdiction of the trial Court. Consequently I uphold the judgment of the learned additional District Judge and dismiss the appeal with costs. M.Y.H. Appeal dismissed.