' Octroi contractor Waris Khan Kundi plaintiff, instituted suit on 29-1-1997 against the Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Peshawar and others, defendants, for recovery of Rs,16,35,000 or in the alternative for rendition of accounts. He also sought declaration to the effect that demand notice dated 21-1-1987 by defendant No,3 requiring the plaintiff to deposit Rs,2,64,526 within three days of the issuance of notice, was illegal and issued with mala fide intentions. The suit was contested on all ground legal as well as factual and claim of the plaintiff was denied. The suit was alleged to have been filed as a counterblast to the defendants' claim. Relevant issues were framed and after recording pro and contra evidence, learned Senior Civil Judge, Tank, seized of the matter, by means of his judgment and decree, dated 28-9-1998 partially decreed the suit to the extent of Rs,74,947.26 along with interest at bank rate. An appeal was preferred thereagainst by the defendants in this Court on 30-11-1998. The appeal was, however, withdrawn on 15-12-1998 with permission to file the same before the proper forum. The appeal was accordingly lodged before District Judge, Tank on 22-12-1998. The appeal was accompanied by an application under section 5 read with section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay. The learned District Judge by his judgment dated 26-9-2002 proceeded to hold that the reasons mentioned in the application of the appellants for condonation of delay are not bona fide and convincing and thus, he dismissed the appeal as hopelessly time-barred.
Feeling aggrieved, instant civil revision has been filed under section 115 of the C.P.C. Seeking reversal of the judgments and decrees of the forums below dated 28-9-1998 and 26-9-2002 respectively.
2. I have heard Mr. Faridullah Khan Kundi, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Yousaf Khan, Advocate for respondent No,1 at some length in the light of the material on record and the case- law cited at the bar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue that the subject-matter in the plaint was valued Rs,16,35,000 for the purpose of court-fee and suit valuation, so, the petitioners bonafidely and well within time filed appeal before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court held the decretal amount of Rs,74,947 which is in the ambit of District Judge, the appellants were allowed to withdraw the appeal with permission to file the same before the appropriate forum. This was a bona fide mistake of the petitioners and thus, time spent in filing of appeal before this Court is condonable. The learned counsel reiterated that filing of an appeal in a wrong Court on account of mistaken advice tendered by the counsel, by itself, would not attract section 5 of the Limitation Act, but when the litigant and the counsel have acted with due care and caution and their conduct does not smack of negligence, the institution of the appeal in the wrong forum may constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 for condonation of delay. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel reiterated that keeping in view the past conduct of the appellants and having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, delay having occurred in good faith in consequence of ill-advice of the counsel, should have been condoned in the interest of justice. To substantiate the pleas, reliance was placed on Abdul Majeed and another v. Ghulam Haider and others 2001 SCMR 1254, Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. Lawari and 4 others PLD 2000 SC 94, Syed Haji Abdul Wahid and another v. Syed Sirajuddin 1998 SCMR 2296, Sherin and 4 others v.
Fazal Muhammad and 4 others 1995 SCMR 584 and Karachi Water and Sewerage Board through Managing Director and another v. Muhammad Moosa 2001 CLC 221.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the contrary supported the impugned judgment of leaned District Judge and sought dismissal of the revision petition. He placed reliance on Zafar Iqbal Khan v. Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, Islamabad and others 2003 SCMR 1471 = 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1175 and Ijaz Baig and 16 others v. Irshad Baig and 2 others 2003 CLC 1805 (Lahore).
5. Section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, as originally enacted, envisages that an appeal from the decree or order of a Civil Judge shall lie to the High Court if the value of the original suit in which the decree or order was made exceeded fifty thousand rupees and to the District Judge in any other case. Clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 18 was, however, amended by Act V of 1986 and the words fifty thousand rupees have been substituted with two hundred thousand. As such, all cases, in which the value of the original suit exceeds two hundred thousand rupees, an appeal before the High Court is competent and, in the rest of the cases before the District Judge 2000 CLC 1493 (Lahore).
6. It is now well-settled that for determination of the appellate forum the valuation of the suit as stated in the plaint is relevant and not the decretal amount. The proposition does not admit of any doubt in view of number of precedents of the superior Courts available on the subject which need not be enumerated here. Sadar Din v. Ellahi Bakhsh and another PLD 1976 Lah. 1, Muhammad Ayub and 4 others v. Dr. Obaidullah and 6 others 1999 SCMR 394, Muhammad Nawaz v. Sher Muhammad PLD 1987 SC 284 and Ellahi Bakhsh and others v. Mst. Bilqees Begum PLD 1985 SC 393.
7. The grievance of the petitioners is that due to wrong and ill-advice of the counsel, appeal was preferred before this Court instead of the Court of District Judge and thus, time consumed before this Court should not have been calculated for the purpose of limitation and delay, if any, should have been condoned. The submission is misconceived. It has been held in number of cases that wrong advice of counsel or negligence/mistake of the counsel was no reason for condonation of delay. Wrong advice or ill-advice of the counsel was not a ground for extension of time of limitation either under section 5 or section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908. If any authority is needed on the point, reference can be had to Raj Muhammad v. Mst. Chan Bibi and others 1984 SCMR 1058, Mian Azad Bakhsh v. Sheikh Muhammad Afzal 1985 SCMR 1003 and Ismail Din v. Allah Nawaz and others 1988 SCMR 2.
8. Again in Zafar Iqbal Khan v. Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, Islamabad and others 2003 SCMR 1471 = 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1175, it was held that litigating before a wrong forum has never been considered to be a bona fide act in law and the delay caused thereby has never been condoned.
9. In Ch. Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Ali Khan 1975 SCMR 259 the filing of an appeal before District Judge which otherwise should have been filed before the High Court, was considered to be an act of gross lack of care amounting to negligence and in said case the refusal to condone delay was held justified. Lack of exercise of due diligence and caution before moving a wrong forum or staying in a wrong forum was again considered uncondonable by august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Mirza Muhammad Saeed v. Shahabuddin PLD 1983 SC 385 and Muhammad Tufail Danish v. Deputy Director, F.I.A. 1991 SCMR 1841.
10. It is well-settled that with the elapse of time valuable rights accrue in favour of the other side, that is why a litigant is required to explain each day's delay in approaching the Court.
11. The precedents cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, arose in cases having peculiar background. They do not advance the case of the petitioners. I am, therefore, unable to countenance his contentions.
12. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, finding no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgments and decrees of the D Courts below warranting interference by this Court, I dismiss the revision petition with no order as to costs.