' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.---Facts giving rise to this civil revision are that the petitioners-plaintiffs Jamal Khan etc. Filed a suit for possession through pre-emption in the Court of Civil Judge 1st Class, Nankana Sahib, in the year 1998, which was contested, certain issues were framed and ultimately the same was decreed subject to payment of Rs,4,60,000 to the respondents- defendants through judgment and decree dated 18-12-2000. Aggrieved by this Mian Khan etc. Filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Nankana Sahib, who accepted the same and consequently the suit of Jamal Khan etc. Was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 2-9- 2003.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Additional District Judge has erred in law while reversing the findings of the trial Court on issue No,3 as requirements of Talbs were fulfilled by the petitioner-plaintiffs. Further submits that material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction excluding the documents on record was committed. Further submits that against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 8-12-2000 a Regular First Appeal was wrongly filed before the High Court instead of filing appeal before the District Judge, and the appeal was returned, even then it was filed before the learned District Judge on 15-2-2002 despite the fact that High Court returned the appeal on 24-1-2002 and thus limitation was wrongly condoned by the Additional District Judge, resulting into serious miscarriage of justice. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relying on a number of judgments contends that only the point of limitation is a sufficient ground for acceptance of civil revision.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that vide para.3 of the plaint which is available at pages 9 to 12, it was specifically mentioned that the land was sold in the sum of Rs,4,60,000 whereas in para.14 of the plaint for the purpose of court-fee the amount was shown as Rs,25,000 but again in the prayer clause the amount which was requested to be determined/fixed was mentioned as Rs,4,60,000. Keeping in view para.3 and the prayer clause of the plaint when the suit was decreed, the respondents rightly filed Regular First Appeal before the High Court on 6-1-2001 because at that particular time the jurisdiction for filing appeal where the amount was Rs,4,60,000 lied before the High Court and while doing so the respondents did not commit any illegality/irregularity particularly when the Lahore High Court admitted the appeal for regular hearing and also granted interim relief to the respondents, however, the same was returned on 24-1-2002. Further submits that after the order of return by the Lahore High Court dated 24-1-2002, it was not possible to rush to the District Judge without having the certified copes of the documents which were applied and the moment those were delivered, the respondents without wasting even a single day presented the appeal before the learned District Judge on 15-2- 2002 and this very issue was scanned with application of independent mind by the learned Additional District Judge in so many words and the delay was condoned within his competence which cannot be interfered with keeping in view the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge in paras 8 and 12 of the impugned judgment.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The case was mainly argued on the point of limitation by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and to resolve this controversy, I shall advert to paras-8 and 12 of the impugned judgment which are reproduced as follows:- "8. Along with the memoranda of appeal, the appellants have submitted an application for condonation of delay contending that the appeal was initially instituted before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore, which came up for hearing before the Division Bench, who vide order dated 10-1-2001 in RFA No, 10/01 admitted the same for regular hearing and the operation of the impugned judgment and decree was ordered to be suspended, whereafter, vide order dated 22-5- 2001, the Honourable Division Bench had confirmed the stay order. In their application for condonation of delay, it has been asserted by the appellants that they have affixed Court-fee of Rs, 15,000 on the appeal. When the appeal came up for hearing before the other Bench, the learned counsel for respondents pointed out that value of the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction was Rs,25,000 and that the appeal was not competent before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore. Their Lordships vide order dated 24-1-2002 directed the appellants to present the appeal before the learned District Judge, Sheikhupura and memo, of appeal was returned for its presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction. It has been further contended on behalf of the appellants that at the time of filing of appeal before the Honorable Lahore High Court, Lahore neither any objection was raised by the office nor it was pointed out to the counsel for the appellants nor it was pointed out by the Honourable Division Bench and the appeal was admitted for regular hearing and stay order was also confirmed. Since it was a controversy of law, hence, the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore vide order dated 24-1-2002, returned the memo. Of appeal for its presentation before the learned District Judge, Sheikhupura, whereafter, the appellants applied for certified copy on 25-1-2002 and the copy was prepared on 14-2-2002 and delivered to the Counsel for the appellants on 14-2-2002 at 3-00 p.m. Thereafter, the appeal was filed before this Court without any delay. Contention by the appellants is that the appeal was well within time before the Honorable Lahore High Court, Lahore and it remained pending uptil 24-1-2002. Copy was supplied to the appellants on 14-2-2002 and, as such, the appeal was well within time. The appellants consumed all the time from 6-1-2001 uptil 24-1-2002 before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore bonafidely and in good faith and there was no fault on their part and, as such, they have prayed for condonation of delay, if any.
12. This is a suit for possession through pre-emption wherein, it was incumbent for the appellants- defendants to have determined the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction either on the basis of fifteen times of net profits of produce of the suit land of the preceding years or in accordance with the valuation of produce index units, but it has not been done. In para No, 14 of the plaint, the plaintiffs-respondents had determined the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction and court-fee as Rs,25000 which was objected to by the appellants- defendants and issue No,VII was framed for the same. Onus of the said issue was on the defendants- appellants, but as per impugned judgment and decree, they failed to prove the same and ultimately, the same stood answered in negative. Valuation in a suit for pre-emption is to be determined in accordance with fifteen times of net profits of the preceding years or on the basis of valuation of produce index units. Though in the impugned decree- sheet, valuation for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction has been mentioned as Rs,25000 but the same, according to the contention by learned Counsel for the appellants was misunderstood for the reason that the valuation should have been determined in accordance with the amount of consideration. On the basis of said misunderstanding, the appellants had initially preferred an appeal before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore on 10-1-2001 which it was admitted for hearing by the Honourable Division Bench and operation of the impugned judgment and decree stood suspended. Notices were issued to the respondents. On 22-5-2001, the Honourable Division Bench, confirmed the stay order. Thereafter, vide order dated 24-1-2002, the Honourable Division Bench hold that since the plaintiffs-respondents themselves had assessed the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction as Rs,25000 and, as such, the appeal be preferred to the District Court. The memo, of appeal was returned to the appellants for its presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Perusal of the aforesaid copy of order, dated 24-1-2002 reveals that the appellants moved the petition for issuance of certified copy of the same on 25-1-2002, but the same was prepared and delivered on 24-2-2002. All these facts lead to conclude that the appellants had spent time in legal proceedings and had acted in good faith while prosecuting their case before the wrong forum. As such, it cannot be held that either the appellants had not acted in due diligence or that the prosecution by them, before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore was not based on good faith where the appeal was only admitted for regular hearing, but stay order was also confirmed. I am, thus, of the opinion that there. Exists sufficient cause in the instant case for condonation of delay. Even otherwise, the appellants have explained the delay of each and every day. My view seeks support from the dictum by the Honourable Superior Courts reported in PLD 1983 Peshawar 169 and 2002 SCM R 416. Resultantly, the petition for condonation of delay, in filing the appeal, stands accepted."
6. After going through the entire record of the case and after hearing both the parties at some length, I am of the view that no illegality was committed by the learned Additional District Judge, while passing the impugned judgment and decree which otherwise is unexceptionable particularly when there is a very limited scope for interference in exercise of jurisdiction by this Court in revision.
Accordingly, the civil revision is dismissed.