1994 PLP 929 (SCMR)

FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in Civil Revision No. 10‑D of 1986. The land m dispute was sold to the petitioner vide registered sale‑deed dated 20‑6‑1982 for an ostensible price of Rs.1,50,

000. The sale was pre-empted in Suit No. 132 of 1983 by Muhammad Zaman respondent No. 1 and in Suit No. 150 of 1983 by Habib Ullah respondent No. 4 basing their right of pre emption on co‑sharership and contiguity. The sum of Rs.50,000 was stated to be the actual sale consideration fixed in good faith and paid to the vendor. Both these suits were subsequently consolidated and tried jointly. Defendants/vendees in their written statement resisted the suit on various legal and factual pleas which gave rise to the framing of as many as n issues. After recording the parties' evidence the learned trial Judge decided issue No. 1 regarding the value of the suit for purposes of court‑fee and jurisdiction against the plaintiff/ respondent and in favour of the defendants/vendees. While giving his finding on issue No. 8 the learned trial Judge held that plaintiffs/respondents have got superior right of pre‑emption against the defendant/vendee as well as against the rival pre‑emptor. However, on his finding given under issue No 1; that both the suits are incorrectly valued for the purposes of court‑fee jurisdiction, both the plaints were rejected vide order dated 7‑2‑1984. The learned District Judge in appeal filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 reversed the findings on issue No. 1 and in consequence accepted the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree petitioner/vendee challenged the same in Civil Revision No. 10‑D of 1986 in the High Court mainly on the ground that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and give decision thereon as the subject‑matter of the appeal exceeded his pecuniary jurisdiction as was held by the trial Court to be Rs.1,50,

000. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the caveator and perused the record. It is evident from the record that the learned trial Judge initially by his order dated 7‑5‑1983 held that the suits were correctly valued for the purpose of court‑fee and jurisdiction basing reliance on Jhar Padawar placed on file. Subsequently such finding, which was never challenged, was ignored and the issue was decided against the plaintiff on the ground that the land was Banjar and not subject to land revenue and that did not yield any crop so the actual sale consideration would be the value of the suit for purpose of court‑fee and jurisdiction. The learned District Judge, however, in appeal relied on Jhar. Padawar and set aside the findings of the trial Judge on the issue. The dispute as to whether the suit land is Banjar or that it is cultivable is purely a question of fact and cannot bygone into in this petition. The finding of fact given by the learned High Court in this regard is unquestionable. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the finding given by the trial Court on the issue that value of the suit for the purpose of court‑fee and jurisdiction was Rs.1,50,000 the appeal filed before the District Judge was not competent. That the learned High Court in revision after setting aside the judgments and orders of both Courts below should have remanded the case to the trial Court having pecuniary jurisdiction for re‑trial and decision afresh. On going through the judgment of the learned High Court we find force in the contention raised. The learned trial Court on proper appraisal of the parties' evidence held that plaintiff/respondent has got superior right of pre‑emption but rejected the plaint on his finding given on the issue pertaining to valuation of the suit for the purpose of court‑fee and jurisdiction. The learned Additional District Judge in appeal overruling the objection regarding competency of the appeal, on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the appellate Court, reversed the finding given on the abovementioned issue of valuation and decreed the plaintiffs/respondents' suit. The rival pre‑emptor did not challenge the finding any further. The matter was taken to the High Court in revision by the petitioner. It was observed by the learned Judge in the High Court that the finding of the learned District Judge on the question of valuation and his jurisdiction to hear the appeal was arguable yet to avoid remand of the case himself reappraised the entire evidence and maintained the concurrent findings of the Courts below that plaintiffs/respondents Nos.l and 2 had got superior right of pre‑emption. Such being the case we find no ground to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned High Court which does not suffer from any infirmity. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and petition is dismissed. M.BA./D‑104/S Leave refused.