Find a Lawyer

West Pakistarl,E4vi1 Courts Ordinance (II of 1962)‑‑

‑‑‑S. 18‑‑Suits Valuation Act (VI of 1887), S. 11‑‑Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S.7‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0 VII, R. 11(b)‑‑Forum of appeal determined by valuation entered in plaint Trial Court not giving any finding about correct jurisdictional value for purpose of suit‑‑Forum of appeal would be one on basis of valuation as stated in plaint in circumstance. [p. 514] A

Babu Jan Muhammad and others v. Dr. Abdul Ghafoor and others P L D 1966 SC 461; Sadar Din v. Elahi Bakhsh and another PLD 1976 Lah. 1; Ilahi Bakhsh and others v. Mst. Bilqees Begum PLD 1985 SC 393 and Abdul Majid and others v . Muhammad Walayat Khan 1987 S C M R 1139 ref.

Ch. Muhammad Rafique Waraich for Petitioner. Ch. Ghulam Sarwar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th May, 1987.

Respondent filed a suit for possession, upon payment of Rs.50,000, through pre‑emption of 218 Kanals 4 Marlas of agricultural land situated in village Khudian Khas Tehsil Kasur, which had been sold in favour of the petitioner Muhammad Zafar for an ostensible price of Rs.80,000 through mutation No.4005 sanctioned on 28‑12‑1973. In his plaint he mentioned the valuation of the suit for purposes of court‑fee as Rs.1,200, being the 15 times of Rs.80 nett‑profits and valuation thereof for purposes of jurisdiction was entered as Rs.50,000. Vendee‑defendant contested the suit by objecting also to the valuation as being incorrect with reference to the details contained in his preliminary objection No. 2 taken in the written‑statement which, however, related to the valuation for purposes of court‑fee only. A total of 9 issues were settled for trial wherein issue No.2 is as under:‑

"2. Whether the plaint is under‑valued O.P.D.

2. Trial Court held that the syit had been under‑valued in so far as only unreal and imaginary net‑profits of Rs.80 were mentioned for the purpose against the statement of net profits of Rs.6,802.31 furnished by the Tehsil Office. It was concluded that he had mentioned incorrect value for purposes of court‑fee which he has not cared to correct and his conduct has been negligent, contumacious and careless. Its conclusion may better be reproduced in its own words as under:‑

"Keeping in view the conduct of the plaintiff he is not entitled to any indulgence in the matter of court‑fee. It is held that the plaint has not been properly valued for the purpose of court‑fee and jurisdiction and the same is deficiently stamped. This issue is, therefore, decided in affirmative in favour of the defendant."

Suit of the plaintiff was held to be barred by time and he was also held to have waived his right of pre‑emption by his conduct so that he was estopped to institute the suit. In consequence, trial Court dismissed his suit on 30‑7‑1984.

3. Plaintiff filed an appeal against the trial Court's decree in the Court of District Judge, Kasur which is still pending before an Additional District Judge.

4. The vendee‑defendant filed an application dated 7‑1‑1986 for the appeal being returned to the plaintiff for the reason that the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction had to be considered to have been fixed as Rs.1,02,034.65, the appeal did not lie to the District Court. Moreover, since the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction was fixed by the plaintiff in his plaint at Rs.50,000.00 on the assumption that the sale had in fact been made for that amount as had even been asserted by him but since by the statement made by his counsel on 24‑6‑1984 the

ostensible sale price was admitted to be Rs.80,000.00, therefore, therein he will be deemed to have also admitted such valuation for purposes. of jurisdiction and hence, by virtue of the provisions of section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, he should have filed the appeal in the High Court and not in the District Court. After obtaining a written‑reply to this application, learned Additional District Judge rejected the application by his order dated 19‑1‑1986 for the reason that the valuation as fixed in the plaint had to determine the matter and the plaintiff had, therefore, chosen the correct forum for his appeal. This order is assailed in this Civil Revision.

5. The edifice of objection in this case, apart from being based on misunderstanding, is founded upon a mere assumption that admission made on behalf of the plaintiff about the ostensible sale price as Rs.80,000.00 would automatically raise the jurisdictional value of the suit to that figure instead of Rs.50,000/‑ entered therein presumably because the plaintiff had alleged in the plaint that the actual price paid for the land was Rs.50,000/‑ only. Not only that there is no reason to assume that the jurisdictional value of the suit was stated by the plaintiff necessarily on account of the sale‑price believed by him to have been actually paid by the vendee, but also that such valuation stated in the plaint does not get automatically changed with the afore‑mentioned admission and there is the provision made in Rule 11 (b) of Order VII of the C.P.C. enabling a Court to require a plaintiff to correct the valuation. It has been admitted by the learned trial Judge himself that the plaintiff has not corrected the said valuation. It is an altogether different matter that the trial Court had never required him to correct the valuation, therefore, the penal consequence envisaged therein could not‑have followed but the fact remains that a change in the stated valuation could not have come about automatically. Actually, there was neither an objection nor issue raised at all with regard to the jurisdictional value of the suit and muchless did the trial Court give any finding about the correct jurisdictional value for the purposes of suit. It concentrated its attention only on the question of valuation for purposes of court‑fee and upon reaching a conclusion that such valuation is incorrectly stated in the plaint, it only arbitrarily jumped to a similar conclusion with regard even to the incorrectness of the jurisdictional value stated in the plaint. There was no finding recorded as to what may be the correct value for purposes of jurisdiction and so presumably because an objection on the point was never raised by the defendant. The valuation of a suit for purposes of court‑fee is determined by the provisions contained in section 7 of the Court‑Fees Act and the jurisdictional value is governed by the provisions of section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act. Both the valuations need not necessarily be identical in all the suits and since the suit in hand related to possession of agricultural land yielding profits, therefore, its market price was only irrlevant for the purposes of jurisdictional value of the suit which, no doubt, may have been incorrectly stated in the plaint but it was for the defendant to have taken an appropriate objection ‑to claim adjudication on the point which, when made by the trial Court, would undoubtedly have prevailed upon the valuation entered in the plaint to determine the forum for purposes of appeal and until it had been so adjudicated upon by the trial Court, the valuation entered in the plaint had to determine the forum for appeal under section 18 of the West Pakistan (now Punjab) Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962. This has always been the position in law. See for instance, Babu Jan Muhammad and others v. Dr. Abdul Ghafoor and others P L D 1966 SC 461 which was followed in Sadar Din v. Elahi Bakhsh and another P L D 1976 Lah. 1 and approved in Ilahi Bakhsh and others v. Mst. Bilqees Begum P L D 1985. SC 393. Apart from the curative provisions of section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 getting attracted to defeat the objection raised by the petitioner, it also stands fore‑closed for the reason of his failure to have raised it in the trial Court before the hearing of the suit and no prejudice having been shown to have followed therefrom. There also is the latest pronouncement on the point made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Abdul Majid and others v . Muhammad Walayat Khan 1987 S C M R 1139 laying down that the forum for appeal is regulated by the value stated in the plaint. The trial Court had not given any finding at all about the correct valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction being any different from the one appearing in the plaint, therefore, on the basis of that valuation, the plaintiff had rightly taken his appeal to the District Court. View to this effect taken by the learned Additional District Judge is clearly correct.

6. There is no force in the Civil Revision which is accordingly dismissed with costs.

K.B.A./M‑282/L. Application 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.