Find a Lawyer

First Appeal from Original Order No. 243 of 1977, decided on 19th January, 1980.

-- S. 102-B read with High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Chap. 111-D, rr. 1 (b) & 2-Valuation.--Jurisdiction-Order XLIII, r. 1 (u) & O. XLI, r. 23-A both as amended by Lahore High Court Second appeal-Value of suit for purpose of jurisdiction fixed Rs. 174 being thirty times of land revenue assessed on land, second appeal on such value (less than Rs. 3,0100), held, not competent.

Ch. Shaukat Ali Saqib for Appellant.

Ch. Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 15th October, 1979.

This F. A. O. is directed against the order of remand passed by the District Judge, Sialkot, in appeal before him preferred by the plaintiff against the trial Court's rejection of his plaint, under Order V11, rule 11, C. P. C.

2. 1 need not advert to the facts, for the competency of the present appeal has been contested on the ground that the value put for the purposes of jurisdiction having been Rs. 174 this appeal could not lie under Order XLIII, rule 1 (u) (Lahore High Court Amendment) read with Order XLI, rule 23-A (Lahore High Court Amendment) and section 102, clause (b), C. P. C. Under Order XLIII, rule 1 (u) an appeal would lie from an order passed under rule 23-A of Order XLI where an appeal would lie from the decree of the appellate Court. But such appeal would lie only if the value of the subject-matter of the suit exceeded Rs. 3,000, and if it did not, it would be barred by clause (b) of section 102.

3. On the other hand, it is urged by learned counsel for the appellants/defendants that in the suit in question, the value of the subject matter for the purposes of jurisdiction is to be computed at fifteen times the annual net profits which is much more than Rs. 3,000 and as such the appeal is competent. This leads to the question as to what is the value of the subject-matter of the suit. The value of the subject-matter for the purposes of jurisdiction in a pre-emption suit is to be computed under : section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act. This section empowers the Provincial

"a Government to make rules for the purpose. Such rules are available in High Court Rules and Orders, Volume 1, Chapter III-D. Rule 2 of Part-D, which speaks of a pre-emption suit, prescribes that the value of the land for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be calculated by the preceding rules. Under the preceding rule 1 (b), where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate paying annual revenue to the Government, which is said to be the case in hand, the value for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be thirty times the revenue recorded. According to learned counsel, for the respondent /plain tiff, Rs. 174 as claimed in the plaint to be the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction reflects the correct valuation, being thirty times the land revenue assessed on the disputed land. Since this valuation, which ha remained unaltered, is now the basis for determining the forum of appeal; the present appeal is hit by clause (b) of section 102, C.P.C: and as such is not maintainable.

4. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs:

M. A. K. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.