1987 PLP 978 (SCMR)

(a) to the High Court if the value of the original suit in which the decree was made exceeds twenty‑five thousand rupees; (b) .. "

3. Subsequently, however, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judges was increased by an amendment of section 18 of the said Ordinance by Section 2, Ordinance XX of 1978, which reads as follows:‑‑ "In the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 in section 18 in subsection (1), in clause (a) for the words "twenty‑five" the word "fifty" shall be substituted " In 1986, section 18 of the said Ordinance was further amended by section 2 of Act V of 1986, which reads as follows:‑‑ "In section 18, in sub‑clause (i), in clause (a) for the words "fifty" the words "two hundred" shall be substituted." This amendment increased the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judges from rupees fifty thousand to rupees two lacs. As the original value of the present suit, though in excess of rupees fifty thousand was less than rupees two lacs, the appeal was now triable by a District Judge. As such the learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, in exercise of his executive powers, directed the office that all R.F.As. upto the value of rupees two lacs be sent back for disposal to the respective District Judges. A circular letter to this effect was also issued to all District Judges in the Punjab. This appeal was therefore, also sent back for disposal to the District Judge, Faisalabad.

4. When the appeal which is the subject‑matter of this case came up for hearing before the District Judge, Faisalabad, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforementioned amendment of 1986 was prospective in nature and the appeal in question having been filed earlier than the coming into force of the amending Act V of 1986, the District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the same. The learned District Judge, Faisalabad, however, rejected this contention.

5. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner went up to the High Court with the same plea, which was turned down by the learned Chief Justice, vide the impugned order, dated 9‑12‑1986. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.

6. We issued notice to the Advocate‑General; converted the petition into appeal and proceeded to dispose it off as such.

7. Before us the learned counsel for the appellant raised the same objection as before the High Court. It was, however, pointed out to him that the relevant provision of the amending Act V of 1986 had merely changed the forum in which the appeal was to be heard and did not affect any vested right of appeal and that, as held by this Court in Adnan Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal P L D 1969 S C 187, such amendments are merely procedural in nature and are, therefore, operative retrospectively. It was pointed out by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General that the same contention had been raised before the Lahore High Court in the case of Daraz Ali and others v. Nathu Khan 1982 C L C 2399 when a first appeal was returned for disposal to the relevant District Judges after the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judges was raised from rupees twenty‑five to rupees fifty thousand by an amendment in section 18 of the Punjab Civil Courts Ordinance (II) of 1962 by Ordinance (XX) of 1978. The plea was rejected by the High Court for the same reason stated above, relying inter alia on this Court's judgment in Adnan Afzal's case (supra).

8. On coming to know of the above‑noted case‑law, the learned counsel for the appellant had nothing to add. As such for the foregoing reasons this appeal is dismissed a, having no merits, with costs throughout. M.B.A./B‑8/S Appeal dismissed