2021 PLP 1774 (CLC)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, CJ.

Through the instant Civil Revision Petition, Petitioners/ Defendants Nos.1, 6, 7 and 8 have challenged the validity of Order dated 05-04-2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge Gilgit in Civil First Appeal No. 54/ 2019, whereby the learned First Appellate Court was pleased to turn down the objection raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners/Defendants Nos.1, 6, 7 and 8.

2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of this Civil Revision Petition are that Plaintiffs had instituted a Civil Suit before the learned Civil Court against the Defendants on 10-8-2006 for declaration along with consequential relief to the effect that Plaintiffs being legal heirs and Sharai owners of suit land measuring 11 Kanals and 5 Marlas situated at Danyore entered in Khasra No. 389 Old Khewat Nos. 271/164/151, Khata No. 672/452 as inherited property according to Jamabandi prepared in the year 1955. After death of Plaintiff's father namely Samad Joo Defendants Nos.1 to 5 fraudulently transferred the entire land in the name of Defendant No.9 vide Mutation No. 2151 on 20-05-1967. The suit land has been transferred from Defendant No.9 into their names on the ground of fraud and undue influences on 21-05-1967. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 through above Mutations prepared new Revenue record vide Khasra Nos. 737, 736 and 738 through Kehwat No. 1129/ 539/ 1128/ 1019 into their names. Plaintiffs sought possession of their inherited property in cancellation of above Mutations.

3. Defendants had contested the suit by filing their separate written statement and denied the claim of Plaintiffs on many factual and legal grounds.

4. From the divergent Pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court has framed 21 issues and after pro and contra evidence of the parties dismissed the Suit of Respondents/ Plaintiffs vide Judgment/ Decree dated 24-04-2018. Being dis-satisfied with the aforesaid Judgment/ Decree the Plaintiffs/ Respondents had filed Civil First Appeal before learned First Appellate Court/ Additional District Judge Gilgit.

5. During final arguments before the learned First Appellate Court/ Additional District Judge Gilgit the learned counsel for the Petitioners/ Defendants raised an objection by contending that the learned First Appellate Court/ Additional District Judge Gilgit has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal/ matter in hand. The learned First Appellate Court Gilgit after hearing arguments of parties on the said point/ objection raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners/ Defendants turn down the objection vide order dated 05-04-2019. Being dis-content with the aforesaid order of the learned First Appellate Court Gilgit Petitioners / Defendants Nos.1, 6, 7 and 8 have preferred the instant Revision Petition before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/ Defendants contended that the impugned order of the learned First Appellate Court Gilgit is contrary against the law and facts on record, hence, liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the learned First Appellate Court Gilgit has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and has exercised jurisdiction not so vested and the findings of the learned First Appellate Court are against the law and facts, hence, liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the learned First Appellate Court has not understand the specific provisions of law and have misinterpreted the relevant provisions of law, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned First Appellate Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the matter in the light of section 18 of Civil Court Ordinance, 1962. The learned counsel relied on 1999 MLD 985 (Lahore) and 1979 CLC 578. (Lahore).

7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the Respondents set No. 1 to set No.3 vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the Petitioners/ Defendants and defended the impugned order of the learned First Appellate Court by asserting that the Plaintiffs/ Respondents have filed a Suit for declaration, possession and consequential relief of their paternal legacy/ inherited property and not for any Recovery of an amount. The value of Suit has been fixed worth Rs.10,000/- for the purpose of Court fee. The learned First Appellate Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the matter in the light of section 18 of Civil Court Ordinance, 1962 and the learned First Appellate Court has rightly exercised jurisdiction vested in it. Summing up the arguments the learned counsel for Respondents/ Plaintiffs requested to dismiss the Revision Petition finding it not maintainable and merit less, to meet the ends of justice. The learned counsel relied on 2003 PLD 46 (Peshawar), 1999 SCMR 394 (Supreme Court of Pakistan).

8. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also minutely perused the record available on file.

9. The only point involved in the present Revision Petition for determination between the parties is that; (Whether the learned First Appellate Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal/matter in hand or not?). From perusal of head note of the Plaint it reveals that Plaintiffs/Respondents Set No. 1 to Set No.3 had filed a Civil Suit before the competent Court of jurisdiction for declaration, possession and Consequential relief and for the purpose of Court fee value of Suit has been fixed worth Rs.10,000/ -. Defendants have claimed in their written statement that they have made improvements on the Suit land by spending huge amount. Mere claiming of an amount, framing of an issue and proving of which by the Petitioners/ Defendants before the learned trial Court does not bar pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Appellate Court. The learned trial Court has dismissed the Suit of the Plaintiffs/ Respondents and no Decree to this extent has been passed in favour of Petitioners/Defendants which exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction of Appellate Court. Value of the Suit is to he looked into for the purpose of determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction of Appellate forum in the light of Section 18 Civil Court Ordinance, 1962. The learned Appellate Court Gilgit has rightly interpreted the Section 18 of Civil Court Ordinance, 1962. Section 18 Civil Court Ordinance, 1962 is reproduced below for convenience:- "Sec.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 exceed [twenty five] [hundred] thousand rupees; and (b) To the District Judge in any" The forum of appeal has to be determined in view of the valuation clause in the plaint and not on the basis of the valuation ascertained by the trial Court. It clearly appears from the aforesaid Section that the learned First Appellate Court has inherent powers to entertain the matter in hand and the learned First Appellate Court has rightly exercised jurisdiction vested in it. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, therefore, doesn't call for any interference by this Court.

10. The nutshell of above discussion is that the instant petition has no merits, hence, dismissed and the judgment/ order of the learned First Appellate Court passed in CFA No.54/2019 is hereby maintained. Since the main civil revision petition has been decided, therefore, Civil Miscellaneous bearing No.417/2019 stands disposed of.

11. Certified copy of this Judgment be send to learned First Appellate Court/ Additional District Judge Gilgit for information. MH/134/GB Revision dismissed.