MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- Vide Mutations Nos.1690 and 1691 attested on 28-7-1991 the petitioners purchased the suit-land for a consideration of Rs.1,50,000. On 23-11-1991 the respondent filed a suit for possession of the said land by pre-emption. According to him, the land had, in fact, been sold for Rs.70,000. It was claimed that the respondent acquired knowledge of the sale of the land on 29-10-1991 when the petitioners came to the land to get possession and the Talb-i- Muwathibat was made in presence of all the defendants and the vendor was also present. He claimed to be a Shafi Jar and Khalit. Talb-i-Ishhad was also pleaded both oral and through a written notice. The petitioners filed a written statement denying the said allegations. Following issues were framed on 12-5-1992:--
(1) Whether the suit is mala fide? OPD
(2) Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his words and conduct to file this suit? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD
(5) Whether the defendants spent an amount of Rs.40,000 upon raising residential rooms, and planting trees over the disputed property and are entitled to recover the said amount by way of the costs of improvements in case the plaintiff's suit is decreed against them? OPD
(6) Whether the defendants incurred an amount of Rs.11,400 as expenses of the mutation and the District Council fee, regarding the purchase of the disputed property and are entitled to recover the same in case the suit decided against them? OPD
(7) Whether the plaintiff has no right of pre-emption as against the defendants? OPD
(8) Whether the plaintiff has superior right of pre-emption exercisable under the law? OPP
(9) Whether the disputed sale was effected for consideration of Rs.70,000 which was the prevailing market price of the disputed land and the sale price of Rs.1,50,000 is fictitious and was not fixed in good faith nor paid? OPP
(10) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for possession as prayed for ? OPP
(11) Relief.
Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court found Issues Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 against the petitioners while under Issue No.7 it was held that the respondent has a superior right of pre- emption. However, Issues Nos.8, 3 and 5 were answered against the respondent while under Issue No.9 it was found that the actual sale price was Rs.1,50,000. The suit was accordingly dismissed on 25-4-1993. The respondent filed a first appeal which came up for hearing before a learned Additional District Judge, Multan. Now before the learned Additional District Judge the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned trial Court was questioned. The objection found favour with the learned Additional District Judge and further he observed that a specific issue regarding the Talbs had not been framed. He accordingly proceeded to remand the case for fresh decision vide order, dated 21-11-1996.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no objection was raised and possibly could be raised by the respondent who was himself the plaintiff to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned trial Court during the trial and as such the learned Additional District Judge was not competent to entertain the said objection. According to him, the value fixed by the respondent himself was accepted by both the Courts. In the matter of Talbs, learned counsel has taken me through the evidence to demonstrate that the parties were fully aware as to what has to be proved or disproved by them and as such there was no justification for remand. The precise plea is that the learned Additional District Judge ought to have decided the appeal on merits. Learned counsel for the respondent has tried to support the, impugned order.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I have reproduced the issues above. Upon a reading of the evidence there is no manner of doubt in my mind that both the parties were fully aware of the significance of Issue No.8 and the respondent knew what has to be proved by him. No prejudice possibly could have been claimed for non-framing of a specific issue mentioning Talbs. I have referred to the plaint also above and the respondent did make an attempt to lead the evidence on Talbs.
4. Now so far as the matter of pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, the respondent had himself fixed the value of the suit at Rs. 15,000. This value was upheld by the learned trial Court by rejecting the objection not of the respondent but of the petitioners. The matter was not pressed any further. Now section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, places an express bar upon an appellate Court to entertain an objection to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned trial Court unless and until the objection was taken in the Court of first instance at or before the hearing at which issues were first framed and recorded. The second condition is that the appellate Court is satisfied that the overvaluation or under-valuation of the suit has prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit or appeal on its merits. None of two conditions are existing in the present case. This being so, the learned Additional District Judge has acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the said objection and remanding the case back to the learned trial Court.
5. The civil revision accordingly is allowed. The impugned order and decree dated 21-11-1996 of the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, is set aside. The result would be that the first appeal filed by the respondent shall be deemed to be pending before the learned District Judge, Multan, where the parties shall appear on 7-6-2006. The learned District Judge shall requisition the records and proceed further in the matter either himself or entrust the case to a learned Additional District Judge who shall examine the records, hear the parties and decide all the issues and consequently, the appeal on merits. No orders as to costs.