' MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.--- Through this civil first appeal, appellants have called in question the judgment/decree dated 30-06-2009, passed by the learned Administrative Civil Judge Gilgit, in Civil Suit No.80/2003. Through impugned order, the learned trial court dismissed the suit with costs.
2. Appellants/plaintiffs filed the suitfor possession of the suit vehicle and payment of Rs.500/- per day as rent of the suit vehicle w.e.f. 01-01-1988 till return of the suit vehicle. Appellants/plaintiffs have further prayed for permanent injunction against registration of the suit vehicle in the names of respondents or against the cancellation of registration of suit vehicle in the name of father of appellants/plaintiffs. Appellants/plaintiffs have fixed the valuation of suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction as Rs.10,000/-. Learned trial court framed 14 issues in connection with the trial proceedings of the case.
' Respondents Nos. 1 and 3/ defendants Nos.1 and 3 contested the suit and the learned trial court proceeded exparte against the rest of respondents/ defendants through order sheet dated 07-06- 2007. In their written statement, contesting respondents pleaded that the suit vehicle was sold to 8 or 9 persons within the 15 years, so appellants/plaintiffs have no cause of action against the respondents/ defendants.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone throughrecord of the case. Evidently, the appeal in hand is first appeal against the impugned order and the only question required to be answered first is the ascertainment of pecuniary jurisdiction of this court to hear the appeal. Normally, first appeal in the High Court is filed only where the valuation of suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court.
Appellants/plaintiffs have specifically ascertained value of this appeal for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction as Rs.250,000/-. In this connection, para No.17 of the memorandum of appeal is relevant. For ready reference, we reproduce the relevant part of the said paragraph of the memo of appeal hereunder:-
17. "That the plaintiffs/appellants have claimed Rs.500/- per day as rent of the disputed vehicle with effect from 1-1-1988 in the plaint and if decree is granted in favour of plaintiffs, then value for the purpose of jurisdiction of the Court exceeds Rs.250,000/-, hence this appeal is being filed before this Hon'ble Court." It is worth noting that appellants/plaintiffs valued the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction as Rs.10,000/-. So the only question debated before us is pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. In this connection, we have minutely perused pleadings of parties, particularly plaint and memorandum of this appeal.
4. The original suit is for declaration regarding the ownership of suit suzuki/vehicle and prayer of possession thereof as consequential relief. The appellants have also claimed Rs.500/- per day from 01-01-1988. Record of trial court reveals that valuation of suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction has been fixed as Rs.10,000/= in the plaint of suit. In para No. 17 of this appeal, the appellants have written that they have claimed Rs.500/- per day as rent of disputed vehicle from 01-01-1988 in the plaint, and if the decree is granted then value for the purpose of jurisdiction exceeds Rs.250,000/-, hence this appeal has been filed before this Court. Thus, it is evident from plain perusal of above referred parts of pleadings that appellants have filed appeal in hand on mere assumption of valuation of suit amount.
5. So, it is clear that the present appeal has been filed by the appellants before this Court, on misconception of relevant law as neither a decree exceedingRs.250,000/- has been passed in favour of the appellants nor the appellants have fixed this amount as value of the suit in the plaint.
Moreover, counsel for appellants failed to cite any law or precedent law showing competency of appeal on assumptions pointed out in par,a 17 of memorandum of appeal.
6. In the light of above facts, theoffice should not have received this appeal. So, we direct the office for returning memorandum of appeal to the appellants enabling them to present the same before court of competent jurisdiction, if so advised. This appeal is disposed of on the above terms. , File.