P L D 2026 Peshawar 129 (PLP)

QAZI JAWAD EHSANULLAH, J.

Through this writ petition, the petitioners have impugned the concurrent findings of the two courts below, whereby their application for rejection of the plaint filed under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. was ordered to be dismissed. The judgment of learned Appellate Court/Additional District Judge, Malakand at Batkhela was pronounced on 12.02.2024 and that of the learned trial Court/Senior Civil Judge (Judicial)/A'ala Illaqa Qazi, Malakand at Batkhela was handed down on 30.11.2023.

2. It appears from the record that, on 15.9.2022, private respondents herein had filed a representative suit in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge/A'ala Illaqa Qazi, Malakand at Batkhela seeking declaration of ownership with respect to the suit property (fully described in the plaint) along with consequential relief(s). As is discernable from the plaint, the suit was initially valued at Rs. 405,000,000/- both for the purposes of court fee as well as jurisdiction. This particular valuation clause was later on corrected On the application of the plaintiff through an order dated 30.11.2023 of the learned trial court, whereby the valuation so fixed was reduced to from Rs. 405,000,000/- to Rs. 45,000,000/-. The present petitioners/defendants in the suit were issued summons of the aforesaid suit and upon receipt thereof, they had appeared in the court and had contested the suit initially by way of filing an application for return/rejection/dismissal of the plaint / suit under the provisions of Order VII Rule 10/11, C.P.C. In their application, the present petitioners had inter alia contended that the plaintiffs did not have a cause of action to sue and that the learned Civil Judge was having no jurisdiction to entertain the cause.

3. It was vide order dated 30.11.2023, that the aforesaid application was dismissed by the learned trial court by holding that the suit was perfectly maintainable as it did not suffer from any of the defects that were pointed out by the present petitioners in their application dated 26.01.2023. Likewise, as regards the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction, the point raised by the petitioners regarding lack of jurisdiction was also turned down as on an application filed by the private respondents for correction of the valuation clause of the plaint, a specific order was passed reducing the value of the suit to Rs. 45,000,000/- thereby bringing the same within its pecuniary jurisdiction as fixed by section 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 19081.

4. The present petitioners feeling not contended with the aforesaid judgment of the learned trial court had preferred a Civil Revision before the learned District Judge, Malakand at Batkhela. This particular petition was decided by the learned Additional District Judge on 12.02.2024 through a detailed judgment, whereby it was held that the ground of lack of cause of action agitated by the petitioners herein for seeking rejection of the plaint was without substance because the case in hand had revolved around a factual controversy which could only have been adjudicated upon after a full-fledged trial. Besides, it was held that 'non-disclosure of cause of action' and 'lack of cause of action' were two distinct and different situations. It was only in the former case that the plaint could be summarily rejected but not in the latter situation. Since, the petitioners herein had agitated the ground of lack of cause of action, so the provisions of Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. were not attracted at all. As regards the question of pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned trial court, its findings to that effect were not disturbed and its judgment was upheld on all material particulars.

5. In this particular backdrop, the petitioners herein had invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this court and are praying that the findings of the two courts below may be set aside.

6. The only moot point that has been agitated at the bar by the learned Assistant Advocate General representing the petitioners is that the valuation of the suit given initially in the plaint was over 50,000,000/-; that this particular value given in the plaint could not have been changed by the trial court; the prayer clause (daal) of the plaint where the plaintiffs were seeking recovery of Rs. 45,000,000/- per annum accumulates to an amount much higher than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the civil court; therefore, the suit should have been returned right away and court of Civil Judge did not have the jurisdiction to change the value on the application of the plaintiffs.

7. Arguments heard and record perused.

8. As regards the question of pecuniary jurisdiction of civil court to entertain and adjudicate upon a suit, the provisions of section 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 19082 envisage as under; "

6. Pecuniary Jurisdiction.- Save in so far as in otherwise expressly provided, all civil suits shall be filed in the following manner, namely:- a) where the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit is below rupees fifty million, the suit shall be filed in the Court of Civil Judge, as may be prescribed by the High Court; and b) where the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit is rupees fifty million or above, the suit shall be filed in the Court of District Judge, as may be prescribed by the High Court."

9. In view of the express command of section 6 ibid, it is more than obvious that if the amount or value of the subject matter of a suit is below rupees fifty million, then the suit is to be filed in the Court of Civil Judge; and if the value of the suit is more than the aforesaid maximum limit, the suit is to be filed before the District Judge. It needs hardly to be emphasized at this juncture that the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit is not provided to be ascertained by a litigant through some abstract guess work or so. For valuing a suit for the purpose of court fee the special law that governs the matter is Court-Fees Act, 1870. Likewise, for the purpose of ascertaining the jurisdictional value of the case, it is the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 which provides a complete guide and structure for computation of the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit.

10. Since, the sole issue in the present case as agitated at the bar relates to the valuation of suit for the purpose of jurisdiction, therefore, the preamble of the Act of 1887 is of utmost relevance which very clearly envisages that the Act is promulgated 'to prescribe the mode of valuing certain suits for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of Courts with respect thereto'. Thus, it is settled that whenever a litigant or his counsel has to ascertain the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction (original or appellate), he has to do that in accordance with the special law ibid. The mechanism which is to be adopted and gone through for the object is detailed in section 3 and 8 specifically given the very nature of every suit.

11. As the mode of valuation and its ascertainment given in the plaint filed by Respondents 1-12 herein has not been challenged as such, therefore, I would avoid going into that discussion and would confine myself to decide the question as to whether trial court has the jurisdiction to change the value or amount of subject matter of the suit or not particularly when the plaint is initially valued at an amount beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction.

12. The question of valuation clause of the suit given in plaint and its change during the trial, vehemently voiced by the learned counsel of the petitioners, was authoritatively dealt with by the apex court in the case of 'Zahid Zaman Khan and others v. Khan Afsar and others' reported in PLD 2016 SC

409. In this case-law, while interpreting the provisions of section 18(1) of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, the competence of trial court to change / increase the valuation clause of the plaint for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction was dilated upon and decided. For the facility of reference, relevant paragraphs from the above judgment are reproduced herein; "

5. In answering the first question, we need to see whether the trial court has the authority in law to change the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and to direct the plaintiff to pay the court fee according to the valuation so determined by the court. In this context two situations may arise; firstly where a suit's valuation by the plaintiff is challenged by the defendant on the basis of the relevant law, i.e. the Court-Fees Act, 1870 (the Court-Fees Act) and Suits Valuation Act 1887 (the Suits Valuation Act), an issue is framed and evidence recorded. The court is obliged to determine and fix the correct valuation for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction (see 1980 CLC 589) and direct the plaintiff to make good the deficiency of the court-fee. The plaintiff is bound to do so and failure to so do would entail the consequences under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.). In the event that the value of the suit so determined exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, it (the court) shall send the matter to the District Judge for its transfer and entrustment to the court of competent jurisdiction. Secondly, in the cases where the defendant(s) is proceeded against ex-parte and there is no challenge to the valuation fixed in the plaint but Where the court forms an impression that the suit is seemingly collusive and might have been filed to affect third party rights and/or is ostensibly undervalued, the Court is duty bound to determine and fix the value after holding such inquiry and collecting such material as may be deemed expedient by the court. It would then direct the plaintiff to make good the deficiency of the court-fee. It may emphatically be stated that the law enjoins a duty upon the Court to settle questions about its jurisdiction, because subject to certain exceptions, any decision rendered by the court having no jurisdiction stands vitiated on that account alone. We are fortified in our view by a judgment reported as Ch. Nazir Ahmed v. Abdul Karim and another (PLD 1990 SC 42), the relevant portion reads as under:- "It is well settled that the Court is bound to ascertain the deficiency in the court-fee affixed on the plaint and then give time to the plaintiffs to make up the deficiency and if he complies with the order within time, the defect in the plaint is deemed to have been removed from the date it had originally filed in Court." Adverting now to the proposition itself, for the purposes of determining the forum of appeal the provisions of Section 18(1) of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 (the Ordinance) are relevant which are reproduced hereunder:- "

18. Appeals from Civil Judges.- (1) Save as aforesaid, an appeal from a decree or order of a Civil Judge, shall lie-- (a) to the High Court if the value of the original suit in which the decree or order was made exceeds twenty five hundred thousand rupees. (b) to the District Judge in any other case." Section 18 ibid applies to regular first appeal(s) from the decree or order of the Civil Judge. For the purposes of this proposition the most important words of the section are the value of the original suit". Obviously the value of the original suit initially is the one which has been fixed by the plaintiff in his plaint, but where the court in either of the two situations outling above has increased the valuation, the determination made by the court shall be "the value of the original suit" and the value initially fixed by the plaintiff shall cease to exist, and shall for all intents and purposes on account of the judicial determination stand substituted (by the valuation of the court). It would be absurd if, even after the court having made a judicial determination to increase the value, the initial value which was found to be wrong by the court were to be given precedence over the courts' determination and the forum of appeal were to be settled on that basis (i.e. the plaintiffs valuation). We hold that the value determined by the court shall finally and exclusively be taken into account in terms of Section 18(1)(a) and (b) of the Ordinance as "the value of the original suit". Reliance may be placed upon Zafeer Gul v. Dr. Riaz Ali (2015 SCMR 1691) wherein it has been held:- "Till final determination by the court, the valuation shown in the plaint was to be deemed as proper value of the suit property for the purpose of availing the remedy of appeal qua determining the forum of appeal." (Emphasis supplied) Similarly in Babu Jan Muhammad and others v. Dr. Abdul Ghafoor and others (PLD 1966 SC 461), the facts were that the ADJ hearing an appeal rejected an objection as to the valuation of the plaint and came to the conclusion that the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction should be the value placed on the suit property by the plaintiffs and he thus arrived at the conclusion that the correct value for jurisdiction was in excess of Rs.5,000 (as an amount of land revenue was liable to be added) on the plaintiffs own valuation and consequently the appeal lay before the High Court, holding that "if the plaintiff chooses to value his suit absolutely wrongly in utter disregard of the rules obtaining on the subject, even then such a valuation is to be treated as the correct valuation for the purposes of determining the forum of appeal". The next day, the appellants presented their appeal in the High Court, which dismissed it in limine. This Court, examining the facts held as below:- The learned Judges in the High Court appear to have thought that the plaintiffs were so plainly in error in their valuation of the suit for jurisdiction that they could not be allowed the benefit of the time spent in the Additional District Judge's Court, which led to the decision that the jurisdictional value was understated. They appear to have ignored the fact that it was not for the plaintiffs to vary the valuation in the plaint when it came to taking the matter in appeal against refusal of the Senior Civil Judge to restore the suit. The plaintiffs were bound by the valuation they had thus stated, in a suit of which the Senior Civil Judge had become seized, with the consequence that that valuation could not be altered by themselves, unless with the permission of the Senior Civil Judge. Equally, when they came to appeal against the adverse order of the Senior Civil Judge, they could not choose a forum on the basis of an altered valuation to be conceived, or made by themselves. In other words, it was essential that they should take their appeal to the District Judge, since the valuation of the suit for jurisdiction was below Rs.5,000, and it was only after that Court had decided the matter definitely that they became entitled to go to the High Court as the proper Court of appeal." (Emphasis supplied) In the case reported as Sana Ullah v. Muhammad Akhtar and 11 others (1979 CLC 578) the learned Lahore High Court after considering quite a few precedents from the sub continent came to the following conclusion:- "I am also of the view that the forum of appeal will be determined in a case where the valuation is not changed by the Court, by the value as fixed by the plaintiff but in a case where such a valuation has been changed by the Court after determining the real market value of the property, it will be that valuation which will be deemed to be the value of the original suit within the meaning of section 18 because the word 'value' means the value of the subject-matter of the suit. I am also of the view that in such a case whether the plaintiff contests the valuation arrived at by the Court or acquiesced in it, in either case the form for appeal will be determined by the valuation so found." The findings of Nazir Ahmad and another v. Muhammad Tahir (PLD 1992 Lahore 89), Muhammad Sharif v. Nawab Din and another (PLD 1957 (W.P.) Lahore 283), Suleman and others v. Pir Baksh and others (2012 CLC 1457), Ilahi Baksh v. Bilqees Begum (PLD 1985 SC 393), Muhammad Nawaz v. Sher Muhammad (PLD 1987 SC 284) and Abdul Majid and others v. Muhammad Walayat Khan through his Legal Heirs (1987 SCMR 1139) are to the same effect and reliance has been placed on some of these cases in Babu Jan Muhammad and others v. Dr. Abdul Ghafoor and others (PLD 1966 SC 461). Learned counsel for the respondents however has placed reliance upon Muhammad Nawaz v. Sher Muhammad (PLD 1987 SC 284) and Muhammad Ayub v. Obaidullah (1999 SCMR 394) but on a close reading of these two dicta, we are of the opinion that they do not depart from the ratio of the judgments that the fora of appeal are to be determined on the basis of the valuation fixed by the court. Even otherwise the case of Muhammad do not depart from the ratio of the judgments that the fora of appeal are to be determined on the basis of the valuation fixed by the court. Even otherwise the case of Muhammad Ayub is a leave refusing order and cannot be held to be the enunciation of law by this Court.

6. In conclusion, we hold that the judicial determination of the value of a suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction by a judicial forum shall have precedence over the valuation made by the plaintiff and it shall be such valuation which shall be taken into account for determining forum of appeal from a decree passed in such a suit. In other words, the judicial determination shall be the "value of the original suit" in terms of section 18(1)(a) of the Ordinance."

13. So, in view of the above case-law, it is settled that once a suit has been valued by the plaintiff for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction upon giving a specific amount in the valuation clause of the plaint, it is that very value which is deemed to be final for ascertaining the court fee as well as jurisdiction

3. This valuation continues till the end of litigation in the Supreme Court unless the same is changed and corrected by the trial court. In Zahid Zaman case supra, it has been specifically ruled that undoubtedly it is for the plaintiff to fix the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction in the valuation clause of the plaint but trial court does have the competence to change such valuation and once such a correction is ordered by the court, it is the judicial determination of the value of a suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction which has the precedence over the valuation made by the plaintiff and it shall be the latter which shall be taken into account for determination of jurisdiction of a court.

14. Applying the above law on the present case, it appears that in the present case the suit was initially valued to an amount over fifty million rupees, but that valuation was altered by the learned trial court upon an application filed by the plaintiff. Thus, it was the value of the suit finally determined and altered by the trial court which had to determine the amount of court-fee and competence / jurisdiction of the court to try and adjudicate upon the lis. The argument of learned AAG that the initial value of the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court and so from day one it was not competent to proceed with the case and to alter the value, I am afraid, is misplaced in view of clear findings of the apex court in another case titled, 'Sardar Muhammad Kazim Ziaudding Durrani and others v. Sardar Muhammad Asim Fakhruddin Durrani and others' reported in 2001 SCMR 148, where it was ruled that; "

11. As far as improper valuation of the subject-matter of the suit is concerned it also does not tantamount to constitute formal defect because the valuation of the subject-matter of the suit both for the purpose of jurisdiction of the court and payment of court-fee can be corrected by the Court after recording evidence and if it comes to the conclusion that deficient court-fee has been paid on the plaint then it can call upon the plaintiffs/petitioners to make the deficiency good in exercise of its jurisdiction conferred upon it by section 149, C.P.C. because the question of payment of court-fee is a matter between the subject and the State as it has nothing to do with opponents as held in the case of Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakor Khan and another (PLD 1984 SC 289). Similarly if the Court comes to the conclusion that the valuation of the subject-matter is more than its pecuniary jurisdiction then either it can proceed with matter considering that if it has jurisdiction because such determination has taken place during the pendency of trial of the suit or if the Court forms an opinion otherwise then it can transfer the case through administrative Judge to Court of competent jurisdiction. However, for such defect which again is a latent in its nature suit cannot fail." [emphasis supplied]

15. In view thereof, legal position in this context remains settled that in the event when suit is valued at an amount falling beyond or below the pecuniary jurisdiction of trial court, it can proceed with the trial. This is so because in both these events the value of the suit given in the plaint is subject to final determination / change and correction to be made by the trial court. In case, during the course of evidence or upon its conclusion, court comes to the conclusion that suit is undervalued, it can correct the value and if such value is raised to a limit beyond its jurisdiction the trial court can transmit the same to the appropriate court. Likewise, if a suit is valued initially at a higher amount and is found later during trial to be overvalued beyond its jurisdiction, the trial court can still bring valuation to its correct limit after such inquiry as it may deem fit and then proceed with the case accordingly.

16. The above analysis and discussion on the subject leads me to an irresistible conclusion that the orders of the learned trial court, whereby it had changed the valuation of the suit upon an application filed by the plaintiff, were perfectly in accordance with law, correct and with jurisdiction which went rightly undisturbed by the revisional court. As regard the other findings of the learned Additional District Judge on issues including on the point of 'lack of cause of action' and 'failure to disclose a cause of action', the same were neither touched nor attacked by the learned AAG while making submissions at the bar. Even otherwise, the aforesaid findings of the court below are in accordance with law and I find no patent illegality or jurisdictional defect in the same.

17. Consequently, for what has been discussed above, the writ petition in hand fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost. MQ/56/P Petition dismissed. 1 As amended by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2020. 2 As inserted by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2020. 3 'Zafeer Gul v. Dr Riaz Ali' reported in 2015 SCMR 1691; Muhammad Ayub and 4 others v. Dr. Obaidullah and 6 others reported in 1999 SCMR 394.