1984 PLP 2046 (CLC)

‑ S. 102 & O. XLIP, r. 1(4) & S. 102‑West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962), Ss. 2(b) & 18‑First appeal from order-- Maintainability of‑`Value', meaning of‑Amount or value of subject matter of suit‑Value of suit given in plaint, first appeal and first appeal from order for purposes of jurisdiction as R9. 200‑First appeal, from order, held, competent only if value of subject‑matter of original suit exceeded Rs. 2;000‑Such appeal dismissed.‑[Words and phrases]. This is first appeal against order dated 2‑11‑1981 of the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura whereby he accepted the appeal against judgment and decree dated 22‑4‑1981 of the learned Civil Judge, Nankana Sahib and remanded the case to him for fresh decision in accordance with law.

2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that Jamal Din, predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents, instituted a suit for declara tion to the effect, that he was owner in possession of, the property in dispute and as a consequential relief prayed for prohibitory injunction restraining petitioner‑defendant No. 1 from interfering in his possession of the disputed property. The suit was resisted by petitioner‑defendant No. 1 and it was pleaded that Jamal Din had executed two sale‑deeds alienating the property in dispute in his favour ; the suit was frivolous and liable to dismissal. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22‑4‑1981 dismissed the suit. The respondents being aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree preferred appeal which was allowed vide the impugned order by the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura and the case was remanded to the learned trial Court for fresh decision. Hence this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection about the; competency of this appeal. It was argued that the value of the suit as given in the plaint, first appeal and the instant appeal for the purposes of jurisdiction being R.s. 200 and as per provisions of Order XLIII, rule 1(u), C. P. C. read with section 102, C. P. C. as amended ; by Ordinance XII of 1972, present appeal against the impugned order was competent only if the value of the subject‑matter of original suit exceeded Rs. 2,000.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the value of the subject‑matter of the suit being ‑more than Rs. 2,000 this appeal was, therefore, competent.

5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on this point and find that the appellant himself has valued this appeal at Rs. 200 for the purposes of jurisdiction. According to section 18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 the first appeal was to be preferred keeping in view the value of the original suit. In clause (h) of section 2 of the aforesaid Ordinance value means "the amount or value of the subject‑matter of the suit", therefore, the value of the suit being Rs. 200 and the same value having been adopted in the appeal before the learned lower appellate Court as well as before this Court, it is not possible for the appellant to contend at this stage, that the value of the subject‑matter of the original suit was not Rs. 200 and was more than Rs. 2,000 particularly when the jurisdictional value of the present appeal has also been fixed as Rs. 200 by the appellant. The appellant did not ask for the conversion of this appeal into revision, and in my view rightly sot because such a ground was not available to him at this stage. The preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents prevails and this appeal is liable to dismissal on this ground alone. Even on merits I find no legal justification to interfere in the impugned order particularly when the execution of agreement (Exh. P/1) between the parties was a disputed question of fact, as reflected through the pleadings of the parties, and no specific issue was framed in regard thereto, by the learned trial Court. The learned lower appellate Court, therefore, correctly re‑cast the issues and remanded the case for re‑decision in accordance with law.

6. In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. M. B. A' Appeal dismissed.