ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. - This civil revision is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below vide impugned orders dated 7.10.2011 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gujar Khan and dated 20.09.2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Gujar Khan.
2. The brief facts giving rise to filing of this civil revision are that on 25.09.2009 the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents for the house in his possession as owner with prayer to restrain them permanently from interfering into peaceful possession of the petitioner.
3. The suit was contested and respondent No. 2 filed the written statement. The parties led their respective evidence. On 13.09.2011 when the case was fixed for final arguments the respondents raised objection that the matter regarding fixation of the Court-i.e be decided first. The order was passed on 20.09.2011 to fix the Court-i.e, where-after the petitioner assailed the said order before the Appellate Court. After hearing the oral arguments, the learned Trial Court returned the civil revision on 7.10.2011 to present the same before this Court. Hence this civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two Courts below have committed misreading and non-reading of material available on records; that the said orders being arbitrary and mechanical in nature have been passed without application of judicious mind. He places reliance on Kareem Bux v. AO. Sindh and others (1998 CLC 27 (Karachi), Mst. Ghulam Fatima v. Fatal and others (1986 CLC 2057 (Lahore) and Pervez Akhter and 2 others v. Raj Muhammad (PLD 1991 Azad J&K 50) in support of his arguments.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and submits that the findings on legal issue No. 9 was rightly decided and that the petitioner was required to pay the Court-i.e of Rs. 15,000/-.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
7. In a suit for declaration with consequential relief and permanent injunction on the basis of oral Hibbanama the Court-i.e is required to be on the value of the property. Admittedly, the value of the property disclosed in the plaint is at-least Rs. 15 lac and in paragraph No. 14 of the plaint the value was fixed at Rs. 10,000/-. The learned Trial Court rightly fixed the value of the property for the purposes of Court-i.e at Rs. 30,00,000/- at an appropriate initial stage. There is no material irregularity or illegality in the concurrent findings on 0 issue No. 9, therefore, the same are upheld. In this view of the matter this civil revision having no merit is dismissed.