' This revision petition is directed against the order of Civil Judge, Chakwal dated 16th February, 1980, whereby he had rejected the application of the petitioner under section 152, Order XLVII, rule 1 and section 151, C. P. C. For amendment of the decree dated 22nd December, .1979.
2. In support of the preliminary question regarding maintainability of revision petition directly in the High Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the judgment of Mr. Justice Aftab Hussain in re : Muhammad Zaman v. Malik Ghulam Rasul and another, in which it has been held that even after the amendment of section 115 by virtue of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, the jurisdiction of High Court was concurrent. It has been further held in the precedent case that the jurisdiction of the High Court would be barred only in the case where a revision against the same impugned order has been made to the District Judge.
3. I need not go into this question in depth because I find that the learned Judge had called for the record on 18th October, 1980 and the matter has been pending on the file of the Court for over a year, it will be harsh at this stage to order the petitioner to go back to the learned District Judge.
4. In this case, High Court by order dated 18th October, 1980 had called for the record, but the prayer for the grant of interim stay was deferred at that stage. It appears from the order sheet that technically the civil revision had not been admitted and no order for issuance of notice had been passed. However the office has construed this case to have been admitted for regular hearing and consequently notice was also issued to the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent has put in appearance and the case is listed amongst the notice cases. Since no prejudice is being caused to either party, thus both the learned counsel agree that they are ready to argue the matter. 1 am disposing of this case as a notice case finally as the matter involved is very short. The1 learned counsel for the respondent has frankly conceded that in view of the judgment o Lahore High Court and the position otherwise obtaining in law, the C value of the suit for the-purpose of court-fee should have been computed on the basis of 15 times net profits having arisen from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint and not o the market value as ordered by the Civil Judge on 22nd December, 1979. It is also not denied by the learned counsel that the petitioner has affixed the court-fee on the basis of 15 times net profits of the land in question.
5. In view of the above situation and the admission of the learned counsel for the respondent, this revision petition is accepted and the order of the Civil Judge, Chakwal dated 16th February, 1980 is set aside. The matter is sent back to the Civil Judge, Chakwal, to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. PLD 1976 Lah. 655