2012 PLP 292 (CLC)

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents ' has raised an objection in respect of pecuniary jurisdiction of this court and has contended that basically it was a suit for partition of land. According to Para No.10 of the plaint, the value of suit for the purposes of jurisdiction was fixed at Rs.10,00,

000. Therefore, the matter in hand falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of learned District Judge. So, this R.F.A. be sent back in the court of Additional District Judge, Taxila, who has the jurisdiction in the matter. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on the cases "Muhammad Ayub and 4 others v. Dr. Obaidullah and 6 others (1999 SCMR 394), "Muhammad Nawaz v. Sher Muhammad" (PLD 1987 Supreme Court 284) and "Ilahi?????????? Baldish and others v. Mst. Bilqees Begum" (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 393).

2. Conversely learned counsel for the appellants has opposed the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents and has contended that after passing of .preliminary' decree, learned trial court appointed a Local Commission. He was directed to visit the site and give his report that whether the suit property is partitionable. If the answer is in affirmative, then to suggest the mode of partition. However, if the suit property is not partitionable, then to assess that what is the market value of the suit property.

3. That according to the directions of learned trial court, Local Commission visited the site and submitted his report which is reproduced as under:

4. The arguments of learned counsel for the appellants is that the total market value of the suit-land is Rs.3,17,50,000, therefore, this court has the jurisdiction in the matter because the pecuniary jurisdiction exceed from the court of District Judge. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the case "Suba Khan v. Rehmat Din and 2 others (1980 CLC 589) and has contended .that objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents be turned down and matter be heard by this court.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused:

6. Perusal of record reveals that the total area of suit-land is 31 kanals, 15 marlas which is joint amongst the appellants and the respondents. After passing preliminary 'decree, learned trial court appointed Tehsildar Taxila as Local Commission with a direction to visit A the site and assess its market value if joint land could not be partitioned amongst the co-sharer and ultimately the Local Commission vide his report dated 26-7-2010 assessed that the rate of suit-land is Rs.50,000 per marla and the market value of suit-land measuring 31 kanals, 15 marlas becomes Rs.3,17,50,000.

7. Perusal of para No.10 of the plaint highlights that the value of B suit-land mentioned in the plaint was Rs.10,00,000 which was notspecifically denied in the written statement. So Rs.50,000 per marla assessed by the Local Commission was the tentative assessment and learned counsel for the respondents has rightly pointed out that a forum of appeal has to be determined according to the value of the suit as mentioned in the plaint. Preliminary decree having been passed in the suit, so forum of appeal would not be altered merely because the Local B Commission has assessed a different value because for ascertaining forum of appeal, value of priginal suit as determined under section 3 of Suits Valuation Act, 1887, will be taken into consideration for the purposes of jurisdiction and not the market value or sale price of subject matter of suit. So it is manifest that forum of appeal is to be decided according to the valuation of suit mentioned in the plaint, unless it is specifically denied and issue is framed and the learned trial court had taken a different view.

8. As a result of above discussion, the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is upheld. Office is directed to send this case to the learned District Judge, Rawalpindi, for adjudication on merit. H.B.T./S-127/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition/application dismissed.