MUHAMMAD GHAZANF AR KHAN, J.- The petitioners through instant petition seeks review of the judgment dated 08.06.2017 of this Court passed in R.F.A. NO. 23-P/2017 titled Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others vs Nizam Gul and others by making the following prayers:- "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that judgment/ order dated 08.06.2017 may please be reviewed/set aside and the above mentioned RFA may please be transferred to concerned District Judge for disposal as per mandate of Notification No. 137 dated 03.06.2017 issued on 07.06.2017 in the interest of justice."
2. Facts of the case need not to be reiterated as the same have elaborately been stated in the judgment under review.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks review of the earlier order passed by this Court in R.F.A. No. 23/2017 only on the ground that at the time of pronouncement of judgment, the pecuniary jurisdiction of learned District Judge for hearing appeals was enhanced.
According to him, section 18 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 was amended by Provincial Assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vide Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2017 and enhanced the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Judge for hearing civil appeals/revisions to Rupees Ten (10)
Million. He further contended that in pursuance of above amendment, vide Notification No. 137 dated 03.06.2017 issued on 07.06.2017, all the pending civil appeals/revisions pecuniary limits whereof do not exceed Ten Million have been transferred to concerned District Judge. He contended that as the judgment was passed on 8.6.2017 i.e. after Notification, above mentioned, so at the time of hearing and deciding the appeal, this Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the above said regular first appeal. He fortified his submission by arguing that at the time of arguing the appeal, Government had no knowledge of the notification, hence could not properly assist the Court.
4. On the contrary , the learned counsel for the respondents argued that on the date the appeal came up for hearing, no objection was taken by the appellants, so at this belated stage, they can neither raise this objection nor their review can be entertained.
5. We have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment.
6. It would be worthwhile to reproduce relevant section of the Suits V aluation Act which reads as under- "11. Procedure where objection is taken on appeal or revision that a suit or appeal was not properly valued for jurisdictional purposes.----
(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 578 (now section 99) of the Code of Civil Procedure, an objection that by reason of the over valuation or under valuation of a suit or appeal a Court of first instance or lower appellate Court, which had not jurisdiction with respect to the suit or appeal exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not be entertained by an appellate court unless-
(a) the objection was taken in the Court of first instance at or before the hearing at which issues were first framed and recorded or in the lower appellate Court in the memorandum of appeal to that Court, or .
(b) the appellate Court is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that the suit or appeal was over valued or under valued and that the over valuation or under valuation thereof has prejudicial affected the disposal of the suit or appeal on its merits.
(2) If the objection was taken in the manner mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1), but the appellate Court is not satisfied as to both the matters mentioned in the clause (b) of that sub-section and has before it the materials necessary for the determination of the other grounds of appeal to itself, it shall dispose of the appeal as if there had been no defect of jurisdiction in the Court of first instance or lower appellate Court.
(3) If the objection was taken in the that manner and the appellate Court is satisfied as to both those matters and has not those materials before it, it shall proceed to deal with the appeal under the rules applicable to the Court with respect to the hearing of appeals; but if it remands the suit or appeal, or frames and refers issues for trial, or requires additional evidence to be taken, it shall direct its order to a Court competent to entertain the suit or appeal.
(4) The provisions of this section with respect to an appellate Court shall, so far as they can be made applicable, apply to Court exercising revisional jurisd iction under section 622 (now section 115) of the Code of Civil Procedure or other enactment for the time being in force.
(5) This section extends to the whole of Pakistan and shall come into force on the first day of July , 1887."
The outcome of above provisions of law is that if the objection of valuation was not raised in the memorandum of appeal, same could not be raised afterwards. Even otherwise, a review can only be entertained if it is proved that some new and important matter or evidence has been discovered which after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Even if it is admitted that the petitioners have discovered the amen dment in the law and notification thereon by this Court, after arguing and deciding the case, even then, it will not be helpful to the petitioners as ignorance of law is no excuse. The Government itself has made amendment in the law and at the same time, the Government is showing ignorance regarding the amendment.
7. For what has been discussed above, the review petition being bereft of any merit is dismissed.