' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.---This judgment will dispose of titled civil revision as well as Civil Revision No.491of 2010, as both these matters have arisen out of one order dated 23-4-2010 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Fateh Jang, whereby he returned the memo of appeals filed by the petitioners against the consolidated judgment and decree dated 6-2-2008. By filing these civil revisions the petitioners seek setting aside of the said order.
2. The brief facts giving rise to these civil revisions are that the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners namely Sardar Asad Ali Khan died on 8-7-2006, whereafter his legal heirs filed a suit under section 39 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 for cancellation of registered lease deed along with suit for declaration, whereas Malik Sajid Bashir/respondent filed a suit for declaration and recovery of damages, stating therein that he was lessee of the Petrol Pump under the name and style of "Iqbal and Sons PBS" situated in Khasra No. 866 comprising of land measuring 15 Marlas within the area of mauza Old Bus Stand Khoar Road, Fateh Jang District Attock along with the restoration of the petition, therefore, sought recovery of possession and also claimed recovery of damages for loss of business. Both the suits were consolidated and consolidated issues were framed. The suit of the respondent was decreed to the effect that he (respondent) was held entitled to recover the possession of the suit property until the lease is cancelled and also to recover the mesne profit from the petitioners for the period they again put in possession. However, the suit of the petitioners stood dismissed. Later on the petitioners filed the appeals in both the suits before the learned Addl.
District Judge who returned the memo of appeals on the ground that he had no pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. Hence these civil revisions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order regarding the return of memorandum of appeals is against the law and facts of the case; that the pecuniary jurisdiction has to be determined on the basis of fixation of the suit value for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction as mentioned in the plaint; that in para-11 of the plaint the value is fixed at Rs.200,000 and as such the learned Addl. District Judge enjoyed the jurisdiction as he had the power to adjudicate upon the matters upto Rs.2.5 Million. Places reliance on Ilahi Bakhsh and others v. Mst.
Bilqees Begum (PLD 1985 SC 393) to argue that value of the court-fee for the purpose of jurisdiction in the matter of appeal is the same as in the plaint, for ascertainment of the forum of appeal and as such the determining factors would be the value of the original suit and not the market value of the sale price of the subject-matter under section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Further places reliance on Mehtab Khan v. Faiz Muhammad (PLD 2003 Peshawar 46), argue that under section 18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (2) of 1962 the forum of appeal is to be determined according to the value of suit as mentioned in the plaint.
4.Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent submits that no issue was framed on the subject and refers to para No.1 of the plaint wherein various claims were made beyond the jurisdiction of the Addl. District Judge. Places reliance on Budha Mal v. Rallia Ram and others (AIR 1928 Lahore 157(2)), to argue that the value of the appeal is the amount found due to plaintiff by Court and not the sum at which the value is claimed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
6. A perusal of the plaint of the respondent reveals that the claim of declaration and possession, recovery of Rs.2,00,000 as doss, Rs.50,000 as damages, recovery of price of diesel of Rs.9,22,640, Rs.5,00,000 in cash, Rs.38,46,250, Rs.49,68,000 as rent, Rs.20,00,000 as loss to business, etc. And in para-11, the value of court-fee and jurisdiction is fixed beyond Rs.200,000. Under section 7(1) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, if the suit is for money(including suit for damages or compensation or arrears of maintenance of annutaties as of other sums payable periodically, the amount of fee is payable according to the value of the subject-matter. But under section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act 1887, in suits not attracting para (v)(vi) (ix)(x) and clause-d of section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 the value for court-fee and jurisdiction shall be the same. In the instant case since the recovery of possession and money is involved, therefore, the subject-matter will determine the jurisdiction. The claims thus made went beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Addl. District Judge, hence the appeals were rightly returned.
7. In view of the above, these civil revisions are dismissed.