This appeal has been preferred by Apollo Textile Mills Limited, appellant, under section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh, dated 20th January, 1981 setting aside that part of the award by which over Rupees Thirty-eight Lacs was granted to the appellant as damages against the respon--dents and accepting that part of the award by which over Rupees Three Lac was granted to the respondent as damages against the appellant.
2. After this appeal was admitted on 2nd May, 1981 the respondent' filed an application (C. M. 380/C of 1981) under section 151, C. P. C. For the return of the memorandum of appeal to the appellant for presentation to .The proper court, on the ground that the appeal had been preferred by the appellant in the wrong forum and that the same should have been preferred before the District Judge Muzaffargarh In view of the peculiar nature of the application, the said application was set down for hearing. This application has been argued today by both the learned counsel.
3. 1 have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addres--sed by both the learned counsel. The respondent company is a corpora--tion carrying on construction work and agreed to construct certain works in the mill premises of the appellant company in Muzaffargarh dispute having arisen between the parties, the respondent company instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that they were contractors for the appellant for the construction of mills at Muzaffar--garh and that they had completed 56 per cent work, and that the appellant company had forcibly taken possession of partly construc--ted building and the machinery of the contractor, which they were using illegally, that they be granted a permanent injunction restraining the appellant company from using the machinery for constructing their building beyond what was constructed by the contractor. The said suit was valued for the purposes of court-fees less at Rs. 300 and the same value was assessed for the purposes of jurisdiction. During the course of the said suit the parties agreed to appoint ..Mr. Justice H. T. Ray--mond as Arbitrator and he was so appointed by the Court on 12th Novembers 1974, on the agreement of the parties. The sole Arbitrator made his award on 19th May, 1975 which he filed in Court on 7th January, 1976. Under the terms of the award, Rs.
38,01,784 was granted to the appellant company as damages for breach of contract committed by the contractor and Rs. 3,49,038 was granted to the respondent contractor as damages for breach of contract committed by the appellant. On 19th January, 1976 the respondent contractor filed objections to the award regarding damages awarded against it. On 31st January, 1976 the appellant company filed objections to the award against the' damages granted against the Mill.
On 26th June, 1978, the appellant company withdrew their objections to the award, which statement of the learned counsel for the appellants was recorded by the Senior Civil Judge. On 20th January, 1981 the learned Senior Civil Judge accepted the objections of the respondent contractor and set aside that part of the award which was in favour of the appellant company and accepted that part of the award which was in favour of the res--pondent contractor and made the same a rule of Court and passed decree accordingly. Since the present appeal is under section 39
(1) (vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the court-fees payable on the memo--randum of appeal is that as provided under Article 11 of Schedule 11 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and the jurisdictional value of the same Could be that as mentioned in the suit i.e. Rs: 200. The present appeal is not under section 17 of the Arbitration Act against the decree, but against a composite order dealing with objections filed by both the parties against the award. In; these circumstances, the present appeal figuratively relates to a stage prior to the passing of the decree At this stage there can be no occasion for the jurisdictional value being altered. The jurisdictional value of Rs. 200 as originally given in the plaint still remains in force: If any authority is required for this, Muhammad Ramzan v.
Nazir Ahmad (1979 CLC 95) may be referred to. In this view of the matter the jurisdictional value of the present appeal cannot be, assessed at any higher value than Rs. 200. In these circumstances, the appeal should have been preferred before the District Judge, Muzafargarh and not before this Court. The present appeal appears to have been filed in the wrong forum.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent contractor's applica--tion (C. M. 380/C of 1981) is accepted. This appeal has been wrongly filed in this Court and should be returned to the appellant or its learned counsel for presentation to the proper Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
5. I notice in this case that the District Judge, Muzaffargarh, had initiated an inquiry with regard to the file of the present suit, in view of the interpolations in and/or forgery having been committed with respect to the final order passed by the Senior Civil Judge on 20th January, 1981. I believe the present Senior Civil Judge, Muzaffargrah, who was requested to look into the matter, has submitted his detailed report, in view of the serious nature of the matter, I hereby direct that the District Judge, Muzaffargarh, should not only hear the present appeal but should also conduct the said inquiry himself. The inquiry should be taken up at the earliest and the inquiry proceedings should be conducted day to day, subject to all just exceptions, and the result of the inquiry should be communicated to this Court positively by the end of June, 1982.