1992 PLP 1355 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S.164‑‑‑Objection to jurisdiction of Trial Court, neither raised before Trial Court at first available opportunity nor raised at framing of issues nor in grounds of appeal before Collector‑‑‑Such objection could not be raised at revisional stage‑‑‑Valuation of suit, however, would not affect decision of Court (Trial Court deciding matter in excess of jurisdiction) if same was not otherwise perverse‑‑‑Suit was found to have been filed within limitation‑‑ There being no irregularity, impropriety or illegality in proceedings, no interference was warranted in revisional jurisdiction. Malik Talib Hussain Awan for Petitioner. Hanif Khan Niazi for Respondents. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents brought suit for share of produce against the petitioner for the period Kharif 1983 and Rabi 1984 before the AC‑I/Tehsildar, Jaranwala, which was decreed on 30‑12‑1985 in their favour against the petitioner to the extent of Rs.12,

700. The petitioner un successfully filed an appeal before the AC/Collector and then revision before the Additional Commissioner. Hence this revision petition under section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1987.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended in the written arguments submitted by him that the Assistant Collector‑I/Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit for rent of the value of Rs.12,700 which was in excess of his competence. Therefore, his order was void and all subsequent orders were also without any legal value and hence void. Further, that the suit for Kharif 1983 should have been filed within one year, i.e., till October 1984, whereas the present suit was filed on 15‑1‑1985. All the co‑sharers of the land had not been impleaded as party in violation of Section 15 of the Tenancy Act and the Courts below had not taken into consideration the vidence produced by the petitioner. The amount of the suit had been decreed without deducting, the price of seeds and other expenses permitted under para.25 of MLR

115. It was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted and the orders of the Courts below may be set aside.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents in his written statement maintained in rebuttal that the suit preferred by the respondents was within limitation and concurrent findings of the three Courts below were in favour of the respondents on this point. As regards the non‑joinder of the shareholders, the land; in dispute is owned by four persons; three co‑sharers had preferred suit while the 4th co‑sharer, Lie., Sahib Bibi, made an application to the trial Court for impleading her as a 'party but that application was rejected. Both the Courts below had also excluded her share while deciding the decree of arrears of rent. The learned counsel further asserted that according to Order I, Rule 9, C.P.C. no suit can be defeated by reasons of misioinder of parties. Similarly the plea taken by the. petitioner that the Courts below had not taken into consideration the evidence produced, by him was incorrect as the judgments and decrees passed by these Courts were speaking orders in which the whole evidence had been taken into consideration. The petitioner has not pointed out any piece of evidence which had not been taken into consideration by the Courts below. It was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.

4. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. The objection regarding jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector‑I/Tehsildar was not raised before the trial Court at the first available opportunity and also at the time of framing the issues. This objection was also not taken in the grounds of appeal before the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, therefore, this objection cannot be raised at the revisional stage. Even otherwise it has been held in numerous such cases that valuation of the suit does not affect the decision of the Courts if it is not otherwise perverse. The objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner is therefore not tenable. As regards the point of limitation, it has been correctly pointed out that the rent for Kharif crop was due for payment to the landowner in January and therefore the suit was within limitation. The Kharif crops such as cotton, rice and sugar‑cane, cannot be harvested in the Punjab in October and therefore rent is payable when the tenant has harvested the Kharif crop. Similarly, Mst. Sahib Bibi was excluded by the Trial Court ‑and this does not vitiate the proceedings because her share was also excluded. I do not therefore find any irregularity, impropriety or illegality in the proceedings of the Courts below which would warrant my intervention in the impugned order at the second revisional stage. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. AA./470/R Revision dismissed.