2001 PLP 1260 (CLC)

TALAT QAYUM QURESHI, J.‑‑‑ Messrs Premier Sugar Mills and Distillery Company, Mardan respondent tiled suit for declaration and recovery of Rs.2,24,022.05 with profit at the rate of 14% per annum from 6‑5‑1986 to 30‑11‑1986 and till date of actual recovery. Permanent injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from recovery of Rs.67,874.37 from the respondent/plaintiff was also sought. The said suit was resisted by the appellants/defendants. The learned trial Court after framing ‑as many as 9 issues, recording pro and contra evidence of the parties decree the suit for declaration/permanent injunction and recovery of Rs.2,24,022.05 alongwith 14% interest (as prayed for) in favour of respondent/plaintiff against the appellants/defendants with costs vide judgment and decree, dated 19‑9‑2000. Being aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, the appellants have tiled appeal in hand.

2. At the very outset Mr. Muhammad Alam Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel representing the respondent raised preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of this Court. He argued that since the suit was valued for the purpose of court‑fee and jurisdiction for Rs.2,24,022.05, therefore, the appeal would lie before the learned District Judge and not before this Court.

3. On the other hand Mr. Hatiz Aman, Advocate, the learned counsel representing the Federation argued that since the learned trial Court has also decreed the interest at the rate of 14% per annum, therefore, adding the amount of interest into Rs..2,24,022.05 the value of appeal comes within the jurisdiction of this Court.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the suit was valued for Rs.2,24,022.05, therefore, the appeal would lie to the learned District Judge and not before this Court, this argument has a force in it.

6. As per section 18(2) of the Civil Court Ordinance, 1962 the forum of appeal has to be determined in view of the valuation made in the plaint and not on the basis of valuation ascertained by the trial Court. It will be advantageous to reproduce section of Civil Courts Ordinance, 1982 which reads as under:‑‑ ?

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 five hundred thousand; and (b) to the District Judge in any other case." The aforequoted section clearly denotes that it is the value of the original suit in which the decree or order was made which would determine the forum of appeal. "Value" has been defined in clause (h) of section 2 of Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 which is also reproduced hereunder:‑‑ "(h) 'value' used with reference to a suit means the amount or value of the subject‑matter of the suit." This definition clause also clearly indicates that the determining factor is the amount or value of the subject‑matter of the suit, therefore, we are clear in our mind that forum of appeal is to be determined according to the value of the suit as mentioned in the plaint and in the case in hand grant of decree regarding interest at the rate of 14% is irrelevant because the judgment is yet to attain finality. Reliance in this regard is placed on Muhammad Ayub and 4 others v. Dr. Obaidullah and 6 others 1999 SCMR 394, in which it was held:‑‑ "The important aspect is to note 'value of the original suit' occurring in the above provision. 'Value' has been defined clause (h) of section 2 of the aforesaid Ordinance, which says that with reference .to a suit it means, the amount or value of the subject?matter of the suit. Plethora of case‑law discussed by the High Court in the impugned judgment fortifies the view that the forum of appeal is to be determined according to the value of the suit as mentioned in the plaint and the fixation of the price of the disputed property by the trial: Court is totally irrelevant, because the judgment is yet to attain finality. In this view of the matter, we are also of the view that the Additional District Judge erroneously returned the memo. of appeal. " Keeping in view the abovementioned clear cut provisions of law and dictum laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, the appeal would lie to the learned District Judge as the valuation of the suit is Rs.2,24,022.05. We, therefore, direct the return of memo. of appeal to the appellant as well as C.M. for presentation before the proper forum. Q.M.H./M.A.K./254/P??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.