' ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.--- This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 9- 10-010 whereby learned District Judge, Mardan while accepting appeal of the respondents remanded the case to the learned trial Court for proceeding with the case afresh by summoning the commissioner in the case and giving opportunity to the defendants/respondents for rebuttal.
2. Facts of the case are that the appellant filed a suit for the recovery of certain amount on the basis of rendition of account against the respondents/ government functionaries. The defendants though contested the suit but subsequently absented themselves at the time when proceedings for final decree were started and were thus proceeded against ex parte. The learned trial Court - after receipt of reports of two Commissioners appointed for the determination of the actual amount due against the respondents/defendants, based its findings on the report of the commission and passed a final ex parte decree against the respondents on 26-5-2006 in the sum of Rs,73 lac. Against the said judgment and decree, the respondents/defendants filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree which was dismissed and against that dismissal order, appeals before the District Judge as well as before this Court were filed but both were dismissal. However, in a civil appeal before the Apex Court; the matter was remanded to the trial Court with the direction that the application moved by the appellants for setting aside the ex parte decree shall be deemed to be within time and pending before the trial Court. The trial Court shall decide the same in accordance with law after hearing the parties in an expeditious manner preferably within a period of three months, vide judgment of the august Supreme Court dated 16- 12-2008_
3. After remand, the case was taken up by the trial Court who after giving an opportunity of adducing evidence to the parties and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties again dismissed the application of the respondents/defendants vide judgment dated 22-7-2010.
The order of the learned trial Court passed on 22nd July, 2010 was appealed against and the learned District Judge vide Judgment and order dated 9-10-2010 proceeded to set aside the order of the trial Court and again remanded the case back to the trial Court. Hence this revision petition by the plaintiff/petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on merit the learned appellate court has erred in law because it could not interpret the judgment of the apex court dated 16-12-2008 properly. He further submitted that the application of the respondents/defendants was not within time, therefore, it was wrongly held by the appellate court that application for setting aside of the ex parte decree was within time He further argued that the evidence of the respondents regarding application in the trial Court is contradictory and the reasons shown by them in their application for setting aside the ex parte decree are not proved. His main argument is that the learned appellate court has wrongly assumed jurisdiction because the disputed amount is more than Rs,73 lac and therefore, the forum available for appeal was the High Court and not the District Court:
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that on merits the respondents made out their case for setting aside the ex parte decree. He submitted that regarding the jurisdiction of the appellate court, value for the determination of a forum for appeal is that value mentioned in the plaint and not the value determined by the trial Court.
6. I have gone through the record carefully and have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate court has wrongly interpreted the judgment of the Supreme Court, of no avail because in its judgment dated 16-12- 2008, it has been held as under:--- "The application moved by the appellants shall be deemed to be within time and pending before the trial Court."
' The perusal of the judgment of the appellate court reveals that the same has been correctly interpreted because according to the apex court, this application submitted by the respondents for setting aside of the ex parte decree was termed as within time. So findings of the appellate court are correct on this point.
8. As regards next contention regarding merits, the learned trial Court based its findings on the commission reports. The perusal of the commission report shows that out of two commissioners, only one commissioner has signed the report. So on this ground the commission report may be termed as against facts and law. Moreover, the court was required to concentrate on the contents plaint especially prayer of the plaintiff and the contents of report which appears to him destructive of each other. So this point necessitated remand order by the apex court.
9. Coming to the point of pecuniary jurisdiction, reference may be given to the plaint which reveals that the plaintiff himself has valued the suit for Rs,9000/-for jurisdiction of the court. Legally, the matter of pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of value of suit as mentioned in the plaint and not on the basis of value fixed with reference to the disputed property by the trial Court. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Ayub and 4 others v. Dr. Obaidullah and 6 others (1999 SCM R 394) wherein it has been held:--- "The important aspect is to note "value of the original suit" occurring in the above provision. "Value" has been defined in clause (h) of section 2 of the aforesaid Ordinance, which says that with reference to a suit, it means the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit. Plethora of case-law discussed by the High Court in the impugned judgment fortifies the view that the forum of appeal is to be determined according to the value of the suit as mentioned in the plaint and the fixation of the price of the disputed property by the trial Court is totally irrelevant, because the judgment is yet to attain finality. In this view of the matter, we are also of the view that the Additional District Judge erroneously returned the memo of appeal."
' Furthermore, the afore-cited judgment of the Supreme Court has been followed by this Court in the case reported as 2001 CLC 1260 (G.M. Of Pak Ordnance Factory v. Messrs Premier Sugar Mills and Distillery Company, Mardan) wherein it has been held as under:--- "This definition clause also clearly indicates that the determining factor is the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit, therefore, we are clear in our mind that forum of appeal is to be determined according to the value of the suit as mentioned in the plaint and in the case in hand grant of decree regarding interest at the rate of 14% is irrelevant because the judgment is yet to attain finality. Reliance in this regard is placed on Muhammad Ayub and 4 others v. Dr. Obaidullah and 6 others 1999 SCM R 394."
10. In short as stated above, the value fixed in the plaint by the plaintiff was Rs,9000 and, therefore, the forum of appeal can be B determined on the basis of said value and not on the basis of amount determined by the trial Court.
11. As a sequel to my above discussion, the findings of the learned appellate court on all points do not warrant any interference by this court in its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition being without any substance stands dismissed with no order as to costs.