ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 17.09.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala whereby he set aside order dated 11.01.2010 passed by the Civil Judge dismissing the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. filed by the respondents and remanded the case to the learned Civil Judge.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of the contract on the basis of an agreement to sell which was decreed with the consent of the parties on 23.12.2004 by the learned Civil Judge, Gujranwala. However, the respondents filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. on the ground that respondent No.9/Zafar Iqbal had valid title to the extent of 924 sq. ft. but he had alienated 1685 sq. ft. on the basis of the said decree in favour of petitioner No. 1. It was further averred that as a consequence of the execution of the consent decree, the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner No.1 which was to be executed in favour of petitioner No.2. However, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the same as not maintainable. A revision was preferred against the said order which was allowed and the case was remanded to the learned Civil Judge on 17.09.2010. Hence this writ petition.
3.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4.The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that value of the suit for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction as set out in paragraph 15 of the plaint is fixed at Rs.55,00,000/-, therefore, the revision should have been filed before this Court and not before the Additional.
District Judge carries much weight as under section 115, C.P.C. such a revision petition has to be filed before this Court. I am not persuaded by the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the value of pecuniary jurisdiction would be determined on the basis of the claim made by the respondents in the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. I have also seen order dated 31.10.2012 passed in C.R. No.1756 of 2012 titled "Muhammad Saleem Bhatti v. Irshad Ahmad" wherein against the rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. filed in another suit, the revision petition was entertained by the court of Additional District Judge on the ground that if a fresh suit is filed to the extent of the share to a property, the pecuniary jurisdiction for the purposes of revisional court will be the one claimed by the plaintiff. However, in this case the consent decree has been challenged for which the jurisdiction will be determined on the basis of the plaint of the original suit.
It will not be out of place to refer to the judgment of a Single Bench of Sindh High Court at Karachi in the case titled Abdul Haque and 3 others v. Sukhial and 2 others (2006 CLC 286), wherein reliance has been placed on Province of Punjab v. District Judge, Lahore (PLD 1984 Lahore 515) and following has been laid down:-- "8. Under section 115, C.P.C., both the High Courts and the District Courts, can exercise revisional jurisdiction. There is, however, a limitation on the exercise of such jurisdiction by the latter. It can exercise revisional jurisdiction, only in those cases, wherein the value of the subject-matter, does not exceed its appellate jurisdiction. The appellate jurisdiction is regulated by section 18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962. It has already been stated, that under this section, if the "value" of the original suit is not more than Rs.50,000 the appeal from the judgment and decree passed therein, lies to the District Court and in other cases to High Court. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the term "value" has been defined in section 2(h) of the Ordinance, which read as follows:-- "Value" used with reference to suit means the amount of value of the subject-matter of the suit."
5. In my humble view, the revisional court has exercised the pecuniary jurisdiction not vested in it as the value of the suit set out in the plaint on the basis of which the consent decree was passed was Rs.55,00,000/-. This being a single but an important reason is enough to interfere in the finding of the Additional District Judge in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of 'Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Therefore, I allow this writ petition and set aside the judgment passed by the revisional court with no order as to costs.