' IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.--- With the concurrence of learned counsel for the parties, the hearing of this civil revision petition is being treated as pacca hearing.
2. The only grievance, as has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the learned Civil Judge, who has decided the suit finally, was having no pecuniary jurisdiction at the time, when such suit was decided on 23.10.1994.
3. The relevant facts on such aspect are that, in a suit for declaration and possession, the issue regarding valuation of the suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was specifically framed as Issue No,1, and the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Talagang, by means of judgment and decree dated 23.10.1994, proceeded to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff, (respondent herein), and against the defendants with costs notwithstanding his own findings on Issue No,1, to the effect that the value of the suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was Rs,12,00,000/-, and after holding such findings on Issue No,1, the plaintiff was bound down to affix maximum court-fee of Rs,15,000/- on the plaint up to 15.11.1994, failing which, the plaint of the suit was deemed to be rejected under the provisions of Order VII, rule 11, C . P. C .
4. The defendants, present petitioners, feeling aggrieved of such decree, inter-alia, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction with learned Civil Judge Class-II, challenged such findings in appeal and in the memo. Of appeal before the learned first appellate court, by virtue of Ground-2, it was specifically urged that the learned Civil Judge Class-II was having no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the case valuing Rs,12,00,000/- for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction.
5. The learned Addpitional District Judge, while dismissing such appeal, has failed to give any findings on Issue No,1 or the ground taken by means of para-2 of the memo of appeal.
"Civil Judge 1st Class ToTo exercise jurisdiction in original civil suits or proceedings without limit as regards value.
Civil Judge IInd ClassTo exercise jurisdiction in original civil suit or proceedings wherein the subject-matter in amount or value does not exceed Rs,50,000/- Civil Judge 3rd ClassTo exercise jurisdiction in original civil suits or proceedings wherein the subject-matter in amount or value does not exceed Rs,20.000."
"Civil Judge 1st ClassTo exercise jurisdiction in original civil suit or proceedings without limit as regards value.
Civil Judge IInd ClassTo exercise jurisdiction in original civil suit or proceedings wherein the subject matter in amount or value does not exceed Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs).
Civil Judge 3rd ClassTo exercise jurisdiction in original civil suit or proceedings wherein the6. Responding to such arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has submitted that, although the learned Civil Judge Class-II was having no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and pass a final decree in a suit valuing Rs,12,00,000/- for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, nevertheless since no prejudice has been alleged to have been caused to the petitioner; therefore, the judgment and decree passed by such learned Civil Judge, having no jurisdiction at the relevant time, was not liable to be set-aside on this score alone.
7. In view of Section 9 of The Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, it is the High Court, which has the power to determine the jurisdiction to be exercised in original civil suits as regards the value by any person appointed to be a Civil Judge. Vide Notification No,2110Gaz, (1)/XXI, C,35, dated Lahore, 20th November, 1978, the High Court in exercise of such powers in supersession of previous orders issued in this behalf, determined the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction exercisable by the Civil Judges in original civil suits and proceedings by classifying three different classes of the Civil Judges in the following manner:-
8. In 1994, when the Civil Judge Class-II, in the case in hand, passed a decree, in Punjab, the Civil Judges of Class-II were competent to exercise jurisdiction in original civil suit or proceedings, wherein the subject-matter in amount or value does not exceed Rs,50,000/- and this position prevailed even till 1994, as a change after 1978, only occasioned in the year, 2000, when by means of Notification No,114/RULES/XXI.C.35, Dated Lahore, the 21st March, 2000, such jurisdiction of Civil Judges on original side was enhanced in the following manner:-\ subject matter in amount or value does not exceed Rs,1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac)."It is, thus, clear that on 23.10.1994, Civil Judge Class-II was having no jurisdiction to pass a decree in the suit, the value of which was already determined by the same learned Civil Judge at the rate of Rs,12,00,000/-.
9. So far as the question as to what "prejudice" has been caused to the present petitioners in the event of passing a decree by the learned Judge Class-II, in a suit, which was valued at Rs,12,00,000/- for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, this Court has to see as to whether the term "prejudice" has been defined in any law and, if not, what would be the apparatus with the Court to measure the level of "prejudice", if caused to any party on account of exercise of jurisdiction by an unauthorized Judicial Officer. When the term "prejudice" has not been defined in any law, we have to borrow the definition of such term, as has been provided in the Dictionary.
In Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, published in June, 1996, the'term "prejudice" has been defined as:- "bias, injury, hurt, disadvantage", and in Black's Law Dictionary Tenth Edition, the term "prejudice" has been defined as:- "damage or detriment to one's legal rights or claims".
10. The learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff while relying on Muhammad Hussain and another v. Muhammad Shafi and others (2004 SCMR 1947) and, with reference to Section 11 of The Suits Valuation Act, 1887 (Act No,VII of 1887) has submitted that, the principle underlying Section 11 of Suits Valuation Act, 1887, is that a decree passed by a Court which would have no jurisdiction to hear a suit or appeal, but for over-valuation or under valuation, is not to be treated as what it would be but for section 11, null and void, and that an objection to jurisdiction as regards under valuation or over-valuation should be dealt with under this provision of law and not otherwise.
Spirit of law behind Sections 21 and 99, C.P.C. Appears to be the same as under Section 11 of Suits Valuation Act, 1887, namely, that when a suit had been tried by a Court on merits and judgment delivered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds unless it had caused failure of justice. The policy of the legislature has been to treat objections to jurisdiction both territorial and pecuniary as technical and not open to consideration by an Appellate Court unless it has resulted in grave prejudice on the merits.
' Almost on similar lines, this Court in Malik Fida Mohammad and another v. Haji Ahmad and another (2001 YLR 1850) has held that, Section 11 of Suits Valuation Act, 1887, places embargo upon entertainment of objection to pecuniary jurisdiction of Courts below in circumstances stated in the Section, unless and until appellate Court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it that suit was over-valued or under-valued and such a mistake has prejudicially affected disposal of suit on its merits.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has with him judgment in case of Rehmat Khan v.
Muhammad Shaft (PLD 1981 Lahore 759) wherein this Court was of the view that, the jurisdictional value of the suit, as determined by the Civil Judge having been found to exceed his pecuniary limits, and the Civil Judge, was thus possessed no jurisdiction to decide the suit.
12. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff do speaks about a prejudice, which, if proved to have been. Caused to the affected party, only then the jurisdiction of a learned Civil Judge regarding under-valuation or over-valuation can be adjudged.
13. As already noted that the term "prejudice" has not been defined in any law and such term has been defined in the Dictionaries, noted above therefore, it would be seen as to if, any disadvantage was caused to the petitioners or their case was hurt on account of any bias.
14. When the Courts of Civil Judges are classified in three different categories giving different jurisdiction, the basic intention behind such classification seems to be that the suits valuing more pecuniary jurisdiction, are to be attended to by the Civil Judges having rich experience in their curriculum vitae, and if a case, which has already been determined of a value more than the value fixed by the High Court, to be adjudged by a Civil Judge 1st Class, has been adjudicated upon by Civil Judge Class-II or 3rd Class, the parties to such litigation must have been treated as sufferers on account of the fact that, their case, which deserved to be heard and decided by a Civil Judge having less experience and, thus, even in view of the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, if prejudice has been established to have been caused to the petitioners, the matter deserved to be remanded back to the learned Civil Court, being presided over by a Civil Judge 1st Class for decision of the case afresh on merits.
15. In the present case, the learned first appellate court has failed to give any findings on Issue No.1 as also Ground-2 taken specifically in the memo. Of appeal filed against decree dated 23.10.1994 and, thus, it is held that the case of present petitioners has been prejudiced, both, at trial stage, as well as, the first appeal stage. Both the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below on 23 10.1994 and 26.11.2004, respectively, are thus not sustainable and are set-aside. Civil Suit No,339 of 1993 titled as "Mumtaz Begum v. Ghulam Sakeena etc." shall be deemed to have been pending before the Civil Court.
16. The parties, who are being represented through their learned counsel today, would appear before the learned Civil Judge-I at Tehsil Talagang, District Chakwal, on 23.11.2015, who after requisitioning the record of trial court, would proceed with the matter and try to conclude the trial within nine months, next to 23.11.2015.
17. With these observations, this civil revision petition is allowed.