' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.--- Through this civil revision the petitioners have challenged the judgment- remand order dated. 2-5-2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-petitioners on 17-12-2005 filed a suit to pre-empt the sale of land measuring 64 kanal in favour of the defendants-respondents through Mutation No,552 sanctioned on 15-9-2005. In Para No,7 of the plaint the plaintiffs-petitioners stated that the value of the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction is Rs,1600 as per net profit of the suit property and fifteen times net profit is Rs,24,000. The written statement was filed. In preliminary objection No,8 as well as in reply to para No,7 of the written statement, it was specifically objected that incorrect valuation has been mentioned. The suit was contested. The learned trial Court framed issues and invited the parties to produce their evidence. Both the parties produced their respective evidence. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 1-7-2010 decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred and the learned first appellate court held that non-framing of issues regarding the fixation of the value of the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction is material illegality rendering the impugned judgment and deeree liable to be set aside and remanded the case to the learned trial Court with the direction to frame issue in the light of objection No,8 of the written statement and allow the parties to produce their respective evidence and decide the suit afresh, hence this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon Mst.Sughra Bibi alias Mehran Bibi v. Asghar Khan and another (1988 SCM R 4) states that improper framing of issues is not fatal defect and the first appellate court has wrongly remanded the case. In this context reliance has been further placed on cases titled Fazal Muhammad Bhatti and another v. Mst.Saeeda Akhtar and 2 others (1993 SCM R 2018) and Kaura and others v. Allah Ditta and others (2000 CLC 1018). Learned counsel relying upon cases Qazi Shamsur Rehman and another v. Mst.Chaman Dasta and others (2004 SCM R 1798) states that the first appellate court was not entitled to suo motu attend the objection of the appellants on the point with regard to non-framing of proper issues. Further relying upon Chairman WAPDA Lahore and another v. Gulbat Khan (1996 SCM R 230) states that remand of the case being not a routine matter , it should not be adopted as a matter of course to allow any party or authority to fill in lacuna or to improve its case.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents states that law with regard. To fixation of the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction was amended in the year 1990 and the value for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction is to be fixed according to the value of the land in respect of which the right is claimed calculated by multiplying the produce index units of such land with the money value of a produce index as notified by the Government. Learned counsel while relying upon_ Khandan v. Mst.Qamar-un-Nisa and others (2007 SCM R 551) states that it was the duty of the court to determine the correct valuation of the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction. The learned first appellate court has rightly dealt with the issue and further relying upon Mst.Rasheeda Bibi and others v. Mukhtar Ahmed and others (2008 SCM R 1384), Mst.Rasheeda Bibi and others v. Mukhtar Ahmad and others (2008 SCM R 1384), Munawar Hussain and 2 others v. Sultana Ahmad (2005 SCM R 1388) states that it is an exceptional case , non- framing of issue by the learned trial Court on the objection raised by the defendants-respondents with regard to fixation of improper value for the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee by the plaintiffs was fatal, as no specific case-law declared by this Court and the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has been referred, which may be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. If court-fee is leviable then the suit was not proceedable without payment of court-fee and the fixation of incorrect value of the suit by the plaintiffs themselves was a contumacious act and further that by correct valuation of the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction, the forum of appeal is also to be determined.
5. I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record with their able assistance.
6. I have noticed that the plaintiffs-petitioners without care and caution have fixed the value of the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction which is absolutely against the existing law. In a pre-emption suit for land in accordance with section 7 (vi) of the Court Fees Act Punjab amendment which is as follows:- "(a) Where the subject-matter is land, according to the value of the land in respect of which the right is claimed calculated by multiplying the produce index units of such land with the money value of a produce index as notified by the Government." ' and in accordance with section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 the value for the purposes of jurisdiction will be the same.
7. The law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners declared by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case Chairman WAPDA Lahore and another v. Gulbat Khan (supra) that remand of the case being not, a routine, matter, it should not be adopted as a matter of course to allow any party or authority to fill in lacuna or to improve its case, I bow before the dictum declared by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan but at the same time the remand of case has not been prohibited in exceptional cases when to promote the cause of justice. Even in case in hand petitioner has been given opportunity to fill up lacuna and astonishingly he has challenged the remand order. I believe that it is an exceptional case and remand order passed by the first appellate court was to promote the cause of justice as by correct fixation of value of the suit in accordance with law will not only be helpful for the court to ask the plaintiffs to pay the court-fee, if need be and also for the determination of-forum of appeal. In these circumstances, there is specific and clear objection in the written statement as well as in the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of this case as in this case framing of issues with regard to the correct valuation of the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction go to the root of the case as it is helpful for the payment of the court-fee and for determination of forum of appeal etc. In this view, of the matter the remand order passed by the first appellate court is unexceptional. I see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. In the light of what has been discussed above, this civil revision having no merit is dismissed.