P L D 1981 Lahore 759 (PLP)

The respondent, Muhammad Shall, filed a suit against the appellant, Rehmat Khan, for possession of certain land. The valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was fixed by respondent (plaintiff) at Rs. 15,000 and had paid the court-fee accordingly. The suit was resisted by the appellant inter alia on the ground that the valuation of the suit for both the purposes was Rs. 20,000 or more and, therefore, the Civil Judge 2nd Class, before whom the suit was filed had no jurisdiction to try the same. The learned Civil Judge framed all the issues together, Including the issues relating to jurisdiction and the valuation of the suit. The issues read as follows :- (1) Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property ? O. P. P. (2) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ? O. P. D. (3) Whether the suit is within time ? O. P. P. (4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of parties ? O. P. D. (5) Whether the suit has been properly valued, if not what is the correct valuation ? O. P. P. (6) Relief. The learned Civil Judge answered the 1st issue in the affirmative and the 4th issue in the negative. While dealing with Issue No. 5 it was held by- him that the market value of the property in dispute was Rs. 20,000 and, therefore, the respondent was liable to pay a court-fee of Rs. 15,

000. He had already paid court-fee of Rs.

630. The suit was, therefore, decreed by the learned Civil Judge with the direction -that the respondent shall pay an additional court-fee of Rs. 870.

2. The judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge were challenged by the appellant by means of an appeal before an Additional District Judge. One of the contentions raised in that appeal was that the learned Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to decide the suit on merits after having found that the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was Rs. 20,

000. At the time of the decision of the suit, a Civil Judge 2nd Class could decide cases of the value of Rs. 15,000 or less. The plea raised by the appellant was, however, repelled by the learned Additional District Judge with the following observations :- "It was next argued on behalf of the appellant that valuation for the purposes of court-fee jurisdiction of the present suit was determined by the learned Civil Judge, as Rs. 20,000 and as such the learned Civil Judge being of 11-Class and having a pecuniary jurisdiction up to Rs. 15,000 was not competent to decide the present suit. The argu?ment is not well founded. It is now well settled that a Court has the power to pass a decree in excess of its pecuniary jurisdiction in a case where the Court originally has the jurisdiction but ultimately valuation is found exceeding its pecuniary jurisdiction. In such , a case the jurisdiction of the Court is not ousted." The learned Additional District Judge also did not accept the appellant's view point on the merits of the case and dismissed his appeal with no order as to costs. The appellant has, therefore, come up in second appeal to this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that having found that the valuation of the suit was Rs. 20,000 the learned Civil Judge 2nd Class had no jurisdiction to decide the suit on merits because the valuation of the suit exceeded the pecuniary limits of his jurisdiction. 1t was, therefore, main?tained by him that the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court were liable to be set aside on account of jurisdictional defect .

4. On the other band. learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was no bar to the deciding of the suit by the learned Civil Judge because the suit as originally valued was within the pecuniary limits of his jurisdiction. It was also urged by him that the defect, if any, in the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge stood cured under section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure as no prejudice had been caused to the appellant due to the disposal of the suit by the learned Civil Judge.

5. It is not disputed that the jurisdictional value of the suit as given in the plaint was within the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge but, in consequence of the objection raised by the appellant, it was subsequently held by the learned Civil Judge that the valuation of the suit both for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was Rs. 20,

000. At the time when the learned Civil Judge had decided the suit, his pecuniary jurisdiction extended up to Rs. 15,000 only. Thus, the jurisdictional value of the suit as determined by him exceeded the pecuniary limits of his jurisdiction. He had, therefore, no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the suit on merits. Needless B to say that if a contrary view is taken, it will amount to permitting a Court to decide all sorts of cases exceeding pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction and thus make such limits meaningless.

6. As for the plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the jurisdictional defect in the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court stood cured by the provisions of section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I am unable to agree with him. According to section 99 the defects and errors which are of little consequence are those which do not relate to jurisdic?tion of the Court or merits of the case. Since the defect noted above was in respect of the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court, the provision of section 99 are of no help to the respondent.

7. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the learned Civil Judge who disposed of the suit had no jurisdiction to decide it on merits and the learned Additional District Judge had expressed an erroneous view on the question of his jurisdiction. I, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below and remand this case to the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, with the direction that he shall redecide the suit on merits.

8. There shall be no order as to costs. .

9. Since the parties have been litigating since long the learned Senior Civil Judge shall decide the case afresh within four months of the receipt of this order. Case remanded. :.