1. IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI J.--- On the basis of an agreement to sell arrived at on 5-4-1988 for a consideration of Rs.2,06,000, a suit for specific performance was filed on 27-11-1988, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 31-10-2001.
2. 2.An appeal was filed before the learned District Judge on 8-12-2001, which for preliminary hearing, was taken up by a learned Additional District Judge on 12-12-2001, when the same was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents.
3. 3.On appearance of the respondents in appeal before the learned District Court, it was pointed out that proper court-fee was not paid on the memo of appeal and, therefore, by means of order dated 12-4-2003, the appellant before the learned District Court was directed to make the good deficiency in court-fee by 28-4-2003.
4. 4.Admittedly, when said direction was duly complied with, another objection as to the maintainability of the appeal before the learned District Judge was raised by the respondents with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge for hearing the first appeal against decrees passed in civil cases. The learned Additional District Judge by means of order dated 12-4- 2003, decided that the District Judge had the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon appeal filed against the decree dated 31-10-2001.
5. 5.The question of pecuniary jurisdiction was again raised by the respondents in appeal and this time, it prevailed upon the learned Additional District Judge on 6-12-2004, when it was held that pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge for hearing the civil appeals was increased from Rs.2,00,000 to Rs.2,50,000 on 26-9-2002, when section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance (Amendment) Act, 1986, was further amended. It was further held that at the time of admission of appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, the learned Judge was made to believe that, at the relevant time, the District Judge was having a jurisdiction to entertain the appeals up to the value of Rs.2,50,000. The appeal was also held by the learned Additional District Judge by means of impugned order as being barred by time.
6. 6.Apart from the fact that filing of an appeal before wrong forum was to be treated as an appeal filed before wrong forum and memo of appeal was to be returned to the appellant for its presentation before proper court. This was not done and instead appeal was admitted to regular hearing by the learned District Judge and, thus, even if it was filed before a wrong forum, that was a case of contributory negligence of both, the appellant and the court and a party to litigation on technical grounds must not be knocked out, when act of the court also contributes in such episode.
7. 7.By subsequent amendments in section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance (Amendment) Act, 1986, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned District Judge to hear the appeals against the decrees was gradually increased and ultimately it reached to Rs.25,00,000. Had the appeal in hand, had been returned to the appellant and it would have been presented before this Court, even on the increase of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge, again this was to be returned to the latter's court, where it was still pending.
8. 8.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in similar situation, has held in case of Imtiaz Ali v. Atta Muhammad and another (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 462) as under:--- "Filing of appeal within limitation of 30 days from the delivery of judgment is mandatory, while insufficiency of documents filed with an appeal due to some reasons, have got a different concept and effect. Due to the non-availability of required but not mandatory document, one can obtain a period from the office/court, after filing of an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation because from the date of announcement of the judgment, limitation period having commenced, no interruption could stop the limitation running. The period spent for obtaining copy of impugned judgment could be exempted but the appellant cannot be allowed any more period spent for obtaining copy of decree, as it would have overlapping effect and would be grant of period doubly.
9. The appeal having been filed after one day of period of limitation, has created valuable right in favour of respondents. No sufficient cause for filing of delayed appeal, in the present case, having been found, Supreme Court declined condonation of delay."
10. 9.Keeping in view the above facts, the impugned order dated 6-12-2004, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, is not sustainable and the same is, therefore, set aside. Civil Appeal No.130 of 2003 titled "Syed Abdul Faheed v. Hassan Muhammad etc." would be deemed pending before the learned appellate court.
11. 10.The parties, present in Court, will appear before the learned District Judge, Gujranwala, on 30-5- 2014, who will either hear the appeal himself and decide the same or will entrust the hearing of the same to some other court of competent jurisdiction. However, whichever will be the appellate court will be deciding the appeal on or before 1-7-2014.
12. 11.This revision petition stands allowed.