MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR, J.- This single judgment in the instant appeal shall also decide C.R No.244-M/2015 titled "Mst. Qabala Vs. Muhammad Shafi Khan and others" because the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant before this Court when on 16.05.2015, it was returned to her by the learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zila Qazi-I, Buner at Daggar for presentation before proper forum in view of valuation of the suit, whereas through connected C.R No.244-M/2015, the order of the learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zila Qazi-I, Buner dated 16.05.2015 has been assailed by the petitioner, hence, both the matters are decided through this single judgment.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. It appears from the record that the present appellant Mst. Qabala has filed a suit before the civil Court for declaration claiming herself to be owner of the disputed property on the strength of inheritance mutation No.191 dated 30.12.1985 and entries in the revenue papers in favour of defendants through sale mutation No.196 dated 26.01.1986 were the result of fraud, collusion and active connivance on the part of the respondents/ defendants because she had never sold her share nor received any sale consideration. She has also sought decree for perpetual injunction and recovery of possession, for which, she valued the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction as Rs.200. Suit was resisted by the respondents/ defendants through their written statement. After completion of evidence, the suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 18.09.2013, against which, Civil Appeal No.132/13 of 2013 was filed, during pendency of the same, the learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zila Qazi-I, Buner at Daggar appointed a commission, inter alia, for determination of produce of the suit property, who proceeded to the spot and submitted his report.
The learned Appellate Court, while considering the report of the learned local commission wherein the market value of constructed property was suggested as Rs.1,92,92,500/- etc. (total Rs.8,52,92,500/-), returned the memorandum of the appeal to the appellant through order dated 16.05.2015 for its presentation before this Court whereas through connected civil revision, the order of the learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zila Qazi-I, Buner dated 16.05.2015 has been challenged by the petitioner.
4. It is an admitted fact that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction has been mentioned by the plaintiff in the plaint as Rs.200/- and the learned Appellate Court during pending adjudication of the appeal, has appointed a local commission with the direction to proceed to the spot and to submit his report, whereby the local commission has suggested the value of the property, total production per annum and keeping in view the report, the learned Appellate Court has returned the memorandum of appeal to the appellant/ plaintiff for its presentation before this Court. When the suit was valued by the plaintiff/ appellant for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction as Rs.200/- and at the end, it was dismissed by the learned trial Court and during trial of suit the valuation was not an issue, the report of the learned local commission had not been confirmed yet, who submitted his report on 06.05.2015 and the learned Appellate Court has returned the appeal on 16.05.2015 after submission of the report, the learned Appellate Court was required to invite the objections as per the procedural requirement of order XXVI C.P.C for the purpose of confirmation or rejection of the report-e-commission in view of the ToRs assigned to the learned local commission and thereafter the fate of the report could be decided.
Before any decision upon the report of the local commission either in terms of confirmation or rejection, same could never be made basis for determination of the market value of the suit property or produce thereof. More-so, in accordance with section 18 of the Civil Court Ordinance, 1962, the appellate Court/ District Judge earlier could hear the appeal the valuation of which is rupees one million, whereas through Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Act No. XVIII of 2018, it was substituted as rupees ten million, but thereafter procedural law has been amended and in consonance with section 6 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2020 (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Act No. XLIX of 2020) when the amount or value of the subject matter of a suit is below rupees fifty million, it shall be filed in the Court of Civil Judge and when the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit is rupees fifty million or above, the suit shall be filed in the Court of District Judge or as may be prescribed by the High Court. Since, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the civil Court has been made limited whereas no such limitation has been made on the powers of the District Judge, therefore, the appeal against the decree of the Civil Court within pecuniary jurisdiction after amendment shall be filed before the District Judge while against the decision of the District Judge in its original jurisdiction appeal shall be filed before this Court but when the suit was decided by the learned trial Court prior to amendment and upper pecuniary limit of the learned District Judge has not been limited as earlier it was rupees ten million, the appellate Court/ District Judge could properly hear the appeal. Moreover, the fate of report-e -commission also requires determination after inviting objections from the parties, in accordance with law. In view of the above, when learned counsel for the parties were confronted, they have concurred that this appeal requires proper disposal from the Court of learned District Judge, thus, with their concurrence, office is directed to send the requisitioned record of Civil Appeal No.132/13 of 2013, which shall be deemed pending before the learned District Judge, Buner who either himself or through any Additional District Judge/Izafi Zila Qazi in the District, shall decide the same after hearing the parties, in accordance with law. The connected C.R No.244-M/2015 is hereby dismissed become infructuous. Office shall retain a copy of the memorandum of the appeal alongwith annexures for the record of this Court.