1974 PLP 188 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 8th October 1973. ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑ This petition for special leave to appeal has arisen out of a pre‑emption suit filed by the petitioner, Nazar Hussain, in respect of the sale of six kanals and 15 marlas of land situate in village Kotla Qazi Thal in the Leiah Tehsil of the Muzaffargarh district. It is stated that in his "better statement," recorded by the trial Judge on 27‑5‑1972, the respon dent‑vendee admitted the superior right of pre‑emption of the petitioner and that he reiterated the same position in his statement made on the 24th of June 1972. Issues were framed accordingly, but on the same day the respondent submitted an application contending that he had improved his status under Martial Law Regulation No.115 Thereupon, the learned trial Judge framed an addition issue in this behalf. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition in the Court of the District Judge at Muzaffargarh, but the, same was.' dismissed on 27‑2‑1973. The petitioner thereupon filed a second revision petition in the Lahore High Court, which was, however, dismissed to limine by a learned Single Judge on the 7th of March 1973, observing that the value of the suit was only Rs.150 for the purpose of jurisdiction, and a second revision was not competent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the value of the subject‑matter of the suit was Rs.51,000 which was the sale price of the land, and, therefore, in terms of the amendment introduced in section 115 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure by Article 5 of the Schedule to the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition in this matter, with the result that the order passed by him was a nullity in the eye of law, and the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition. It is correct that under the newly added subsection (2) of section 115 of the C. P. C., the District Court has been authorized to exercise revisional powers in respect of cases in which the amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of that Court, viz., Rs.25,000 at present, and, therefore, prima facie the District Judge did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's revision petition A in view of the value of the land forming the subject‑matter of the suit. However, we do not regard this as a fit case for our interference for the reason that it was the petitioner himself who invoked the revisional jurisdic tion of the District Court, and he cannot now be permitted to contend that that Court had no jurisdiction simply because he has failed on merits. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.