JUDGMEMT ' This Civil Revision arises from the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, whereby he on 10-2-1982 dismissed the appeal fired by Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din Khan and others, petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 19-11-1980, passed by the learned Civil Judge.
2. The facts leading up to this revision in brief are that the D.C.O. And S.C.O., Sahiwal respondents Nos. 4 and 5 vide their orders dated 29-7-1980 and 7-8-1980 included the land of Barkat Ali and Rajab Ali respondents situated in the area of Chak No, 81/5-R Tehsil and District Sahiwal in the C.C.A. Of outlet R.D.
36.1241/5-R. The petitioners herein filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Judge 1st Class, Sahiwal which was decreed on 22-2-1981. The respondents did not challenge the judgment through any appeal. On 8-7-1981, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 moved an application for the amendment of the decree requesting that the word permanently be deleted. The trial Court vide its order dated 19-11-1981 amended the decree as prayed for. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 10-2-1982. Hence this revision.
3. The learned counsel submits that the learned Additional District Judge was legally wrong to treat the application under section 152, C.P.C. Filed on 8-7-1981 as a review application inasmuch as no review application was filed under Order XLVII, rule 1, C.P.C. Furthermore the judgment having been passed on 22-2-1981 the application dated 8-7-1981 which was admittedly filed after about 5 months, being barred by time could not A be treated as a review application. It has also been submitted that the appellate Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
4. The learned counsel for respondents has half-heartedly supported the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record I find that Rs, 60,000 was fixed as pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court and as such appeal from order dated 19-11-1981 arising out of the same suit could not be filed before the learned Additional District Judge.
At this stage the learned counsel for the parties have conceded that the learned Addl. District Judge had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19-11-1981.
6. In this view of the matter the ~revision is accepted. The judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge is set aside and the appeal is sent back to him to return the same to the - appellants to present it before the Court of competent jurisdiction if so advised. The parties are left to bear their own costs.