1982 PLP 1162 (CLC)

(b) Permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 3 personally or' through any other agency to execute the above order against the plaintiff. (c) Cost of the suit. (d) Any other relief which this honourable Court may deem fit and proper."

3. For the purposes of court‑fee and jurisdiction the suit has been valued as per para. 19 of the plaint as follows :‑ "The suit for the purposes of court‑fee and jurisdiction is valued at B Rs. 26,000 for declaration and Rs. 200 for injunction and court‑fee i paid accordingly."

4. During the proceedings of the suit notices were issued to the learned Advocate for the parties to address the Court on the question as to whether the value put by the plaintiffs in para. 19 reproduced above is arbitrary and if so whether the suit ought to have been filed in the first instance in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try the same under section 15, C. P. C.

5. Pursuant to the above notices the learned Advocates for the parties were heard on the questions referred to above. Mr. Pishori learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that though the award in question sought to be set aside and declared as illegal, mala fide, void and without jurisdiction, is for Rs. 14,500 it was open to plaintiffs within the purview of section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act in their absolute discretion to decide and fix the value of the suit for the purpose of Court‑fee and jurisdiction. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel upon the case of Mian Karam Elahi v. Muhammad Bashir (P L D 1949 Lah. 8) and Ghulam Qadir v. Messrs Balak Mal & Sons (P L D 1949 Lah. 61).

6. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and finding that the value put by the plaintiffs on the subject C matter of the suit at Rs. 26,000 for purposes of declaration and Rs. 200 for injunction is arbitrary and is liable to be reviewed by the Court in exercise of its power under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. In order to determine the value of the subject matter involved in the suit the principal observations in the case of Bai Lilavanti and others v. Vaddal Purshottamdas (A I R 1.945 Bom. 4.74) cited with approval in the case of Muhammad Siddiq v. Naji Ahmed & Co. (P L D 1967 Kar. 468) may be referred. The learned Division Bench in their own words summarised the position as follows :‑

"Similarly, in the case of Bai Lilavanti and others v. Vadilal Purshottamdas it was held that section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act is not applicable to suits under section 24 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act. Under it the jurisdiction is to be determined according to the amount or value of the subject‑matter. If the subject‑matter exceeds an amount or value of Rs. 5,000 then the second class Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to try the suit. In that case the subject‑matter of the plaintiff's suit was the setting aside of the two decrees under which he was liable to pay Rs. 5,366‑4‑

6. That was held to be the value of the subject‑matter of the suit and the second class Subordinate Judge was found to have no jurisdiction to try such suit."

7. The learned Division Bench in the case of Muhammad Siddiq after thorough review of the case law on the subject and the principles followed in this part of the country since the decision of the Sind Court in Lakhomal Deepchand and another v. Deepchand Tolaram and others (A I R 1937 Sind 241) held :‑

"It seems to us that ordinarily in suits falling under section 7(iv)(c) a plaintiff is entitled to put his own valuation but in the case the Court comes to the conclusion that it is arbitrarily fixed it can put its own valuation and ask the plaintiff to pay Court‑fee on the valuation. We are in respectful agreement with the view of Davis, C. J. that absence of the rules under section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act is no bar to the exercise of the power under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. and that the question as to what is proper valuation depends upon the circumstances of each suit and the judicial decision of the Court. To hold otherwise would mean to give unlimited power to litigants in drafting their prayers so as to include or exclude relief with a view to confer jurisdiction on the Court to try the suit."

8. Reference may also be made here to the case of Badrul Islam v. Qamarul Islam and 4 others (P L D 1971 Kar. 682) where a learned Single Judge of this Court after reviewing the case reported in A I R 1937 Sind 241 ; P L D 1959 Kar. 802 ; P L D 1964 Kar. 386 and P L D 1967 Kar. 168 came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs cannot value the relief claimed arbitrarily and that this principle is applicable to suits for accounts as to suits for declaratory relief. The view expressed in the case of Ch. Muhammad 1qbal v. Mst. Ahmad Jahan Begum (P L D 1970 Kar. 54) which followed the principle laid down by the learned Laboure High Court in Mian Karam Elahi and Ghulam Qadir, was not followed as not applicable to this part of the country.

9. Lastly reference may be made to the case of Rachappa Subrao Jadhay Desai v. Shidappa Venkatra (AIR 1918 P C 118) where the practice of valuing a prayer for a declaratory decree at a certain amount was condemned with the observation that if any part of the fee payable and paid was a fixed fee under Schedule II of the Act, then the notional value of the property or any part of it could not displace its real value for the purpose of jurisdiction.

10. In the circumstances the inescapable conclusion is that the subject matter in the present suit is the award for Rs. 14,500 which is sought to set aside and got rid of. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation awarded the said amount to be paid to the present defendant No. 1, the subject‑matter of the suit could not therefore be other than Rs. 14,

500. The value put by the plaintiffs cannot be accepted as the same is obviously, so as to enable them to file the suit in this Court. In the light of the above discussions the suit ought to have been filed in the first instance in the Civil Courts at Karachi, as required by section 15 of the C. P. C. which provides that every suit shall be instituted in ‑the Court of lowest grade competent to try it.

11. For the reasons stated above the plaint is ordered to be returned, to be presented to the Court of competent jurisdiction. K. M. A. Order accordingly.