' SHEIKH HAKIM ALI, J.---Relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal are that Sartaj Khan along with Iqbal Hussain had filed a suit for recovery of possession through specific performance of a contract of sale dated 18-6-2002 and a writing dated 20-6-2002, with regard to property in dispute (detail of which is available in the heading of the plaint), against Mehr Muhammad and others, present appellants Nos.3 to 7, in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Charsadda. The sale consideration mentioned in the plaint was Rs,50,00,000 (Fifty Lacs) out of which Rs,7,40,000 were narrated to have been paid as earnest money, while Rs,42,60,000 (Forty two lacs and sixty thousand) were to be paid after six months. The suit was valued for the purpose of court-fee to the extent of Rs,3,000, while for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs,50,00,200 (Fifty lacs two hundred). During the pendency of the suit, a compromise between parties was affected, and on the basis of that compromise, a decree was passed on 20-9-2003. The above noted value for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction was entered and mentioned in the decree-sheet also. Arshad Ali and others, respondents of the instant appeal filed a petition under section 12(2) of the, C.P.C. In the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Charsadda on 30-9-2003, which was dismissed on merits by the aforementioned learned Senior Civil Judge on 13-6-2005. As the appeal was not competent against the aforesaid order, therefore, Arshad Ali and others filed a revision petition, with the Court of learned District Judge, which was entrusted to an heard by learned Additional District Judge-III, Charsadda, who directed the return of aforementioned revision petition, for presentation before a proper forum, after holding the revision petition, incompetent, due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of aforementioned Court. After return of revision petition from the learned Additional District Judge, Charsadda, Arshad Ali and others, the present respondents, presented that revision before the learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, but the learned Judge in Chamber of Peshawar High Court directed back the transmission of aforementioned revision petition to learned Additional District Judge after holding it to fall within his jurisdiction. This order announced on 26-5-2006 by the learned Judge in Chamber of the Peshawar High Court has been assailed through the instant civil appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition as the value of the original suit from where the present proceedings were initiated and commenced was more than Rs,50,00,000 (Fifty lacs), which was in excess of the jurisdiction of learned District Court. Revision was not competent before the learned District Judge, even if it was filed against an order passed upon a petition of section 12 (2) of the, C.P.C. Because the decision/order passed on the aforementioned petition had the effect of maintaining or setting aside the decree of the original suit, the value of which was admittedly more than Rs,50,00,000 (Fifty lacs). According to the learned counsel, this value was to govern the forum for the purpose of filing of revision petition also.
3. Replying to it, learned counsel for the .Respondents submits that learned Judge in Chamber of the Peshawar High Court has rightly returned the revision petition because the petition filed under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. Was filed after disposal of the main suit which was not pending and no value for the purposes of Court fee or jurisdiction was fixed or prescribed by any law for that petition. As it was simply and independent petition filed under section 12(2) of the, C.P.C. Therefore, revision against the order passed upon it could be filed before the learned District Court.
4. Arguments heard and record perused. It is an admitted fact that the original suit as mentioned above had contained the value of more than Rs,50,00,000 (Fifty lacs) for the purpose of jurisdiction.
Question arises as to whether such revision petition can be filed before the learned District Court against a decision/order, if passed during or after the pendency of the suit, the answer would be in the negative. The reason being that revision can be filed before the learned District Judge, if value of the original suit does not exceed its pecuniary limits. According to subsection (2) of section 115 of the, C.P.C. Which is reproduced for ready reference, the learned District Court has got the power of revision with regard to case decided by a subordinate Court, when amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed the pecuniary limits of its appellate jurisdiction.
"115-Reviison(1)...........................................
(2) The District Court may exercise the powers conferred on the High Court by subsection (1) in respect of any case decided by a Court subordinate to such District Court in which no appeal lies and the amount or value of the subject-matter whereof does not exceed the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court."
5. Before making analysis of this provision, it would be necessary to narrate that originally and basically, revisional jurisdiction, has been conferred upon the High Court, from whose power and jurisdiction, with pecuniary limits, learned District Court was also allowed to exercise the revisional power of the High Court. From the plain reading of this subsection, the following ingredients have been found necessary to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of learned District Court:--
(i) Case must have been decided by a Court subordinate to learned District Court.
(ii) Against that decision, appeal is not competent. And
(iii) Amount or value of subject-matter of the case should not exceed the limits of appellate jurisdiction of learned District Court.
' As for essentialities of (i) and (ii) are concerned, there are present in the instant case. It is the third element which has been found missing, if the reasoning of the learned Peshawar High Court is accepted for the sake of arguments. The minute study of this point reveals that revision can be filed before the learned District Court, if the subject-matter of the case falls within the pecuniary limits and encompass of learned District Court, otherwise learned District Court shall have no jurisdiction to entertain such revision. In that event, the learned High Court would be competent Court to entertain such revision. If the reasoning of learned Court is adopted as correct for the purpose of argument, then the decision of petition under section 12(2) of the, C.P.C. Having not contained any pecuniary value limits, even the revision shall not lie before the learned District Court on the basis of this reasoning. To be more elaborative and to State it with precision, a decision which does not contain pecuniary limits up to the extent of appellate limits of learned District Court, in such case revision cannot be filed before the learned District Court and the learned District Court shall not be able to entertain it, as it would not fall within his domain of revisional jurisdiction. So the reasoning adopted by the learned High Court, if applied also bars the filing of revision before the learned District Judge.
6. To our opinion, the correct position of law would be that the petition under section 12(2), C.P.C, although, apparently appears to be an independent petition, yet for the sake of determining the forum of revision to be filed against its decision, we will have to advert and rely upon the jurisdictional value as noted and entered in the plaint. This value has to be considered basic value of choice of forum, it may be for filing of appeal or revision. This is the correct principle to be followed in relation to all the proceedings, unless provided otherwise during the suit or after the decision of a suit. It is pertinent to point out that the effect and consequence of a decision/order passed upon petition under section 12(2), P.P.C. Is to maintain/affirm, cancel or set aside the impugned decree passed in the suit, which decree has jurisdictional value of more than Rs,50,00,000 therefore, against that decree, revision cannot be filed before the learned District Court.
7. Petition under section 12(2) cannot be presumed to be totally an independent proceeding having no nexus or relation with the disputed decree. In fact, petition under section 12(2) of the, C.P.C. Has granted an independent, alternate right to a person to challenge it before the same Court which passed the disputed decree, order or judgment so as to prohibition the institution of fresh suit to challenge that on the grounds mentioned in the section, yet it is an ensuring, incidental and ancillary proceedings to the main suit and decree passed upon it and shall be considered to have arisen from the original suit, proceedings, therefore, we do not subscribe to the view taken by the learned Peshawar High Court that revision was competent before the learned Additional District Judge. Accordingly, we set aside the order/judgment dated 26-6-2005, passed by the learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar and remand the case to the aforementioned learned High Court for decision of the revision petition on its own merits.