Muhammad Ilyas, J.-Facts giving rise to this civil revision are that one Ak 2. In the plaint, the petitioner (plaintiff) fixed Rs. 53,099.70 as valuation of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction. It is nt disputed that the above valuation was objected to by the respondents but no issue in this regard was framed by the learned trial Court. It is not the case of learned counsel for the petitioner that issue with regard to jurisdiction was claimed by the respondents by making an application or otherwise. It would therefore, follow that objection raised by the respondents with regard to jurisdictional value was subsequently abandoned by them, by their own conduct. Learned trial Court also did not find anything wrong with the jurisdictional value fixed by the petitioner. It was, therefore, not altered by it till the disposal of the suit. While taking appeal before the learned Additional District Judge also the petitioner fixed jurisdictional value thereof at Rs, 53, 099.70 as done by him for bis suit. Undoubtedly, at the time when the appeal was filed or the impugned order was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, ha could not hear appeal of the value exceeding Rs. 50,000. Learned counsel, however, contended that the jurisdictional value of the suit as well as the appeal was incorrectly fixed. According to him, the correct valuation thereof was about Rs. 1800 being sixty times the land revenue of the land in dispute, and in view of that valuation the learned Additional District Judge had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal. It was maintained by him that the petitioner wanted to explain the above position to the learned Additional District Judge but he made the order under challenge without hearing the petitioner. He cited Babu Jam Muhammad and others v. Dr. Abdul Ghafoor and others (PLD 1965 SC 461) and Suba Khan v. Rahmat Din and 2 others (1980 CLC 589) to support his contention. In reply to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that since the jurisdictional value of the suit, as fixed by the petitioner (plaintiff) himself, was not altered by the learned trial Court, the petitioner was bound to fix jurisdictional value of his which was actually done by him. The argument proceeds that at the appellate stage it was not open to the petitioner to take exception to the jurisdictional value fixed by him for his appeal nor did he do so by making any application to the learned Additional District Judge or otherwise. In this connection, reliance was placed by him on Sadar Din v. Elahi Bakhsh and another (PLD 1976 Lahore l), Messrs Pakistan Electrical and Mechanical Constructions Ltd., Lahore v. Abdul Rashid and 5 others (1979 CLC 845) and Ilahi Bakhsh and others v. Mst. Bilqees Begum (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 393).
3. It has been clearly ruled in the above eases of Sadar Din, v. Messrs Pakistan Electrical and Meahanteal Constructions Ltd. Lahore and ilahi Bakhsh and others that forum of appeal is to be determined on the basis of value in the suit. Value of suit means the value as fixed by the plaintiff or, if altered by that Court, the value so altered. In the instant case, the petitioner fixed the jurisdictional value of his suit at Rs 53, 099. 70 and it was not altered by the learned trial Court. The forum of appeal was, therefore, to be determined in view of the above valuation fixed by the petitioner (plaintiff) himself. This was actually done by him while taking appeal to the learned District Judge, At the time of filing appeal or at any subsequent stage, no objection in regard to the jurisdictional value was raised by the petitioner before the learned appellate Court by making an application. Plea of leamed counsel for the petitioner that he was not allowed an opportunity to do so is not acceptable because if he was serious in objecting to the jurisdictional value he had ample time, to do o. The appeal was filed in 1984 and it was returned in 1985 As stated bove, on the date when the appeal was returned by the learned Additional District Judge he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the jurisdictional value given in the memorandum of appeal, namely. Rs.
53,099.70, s at that time he could not hear appeals of the value exceeding s, 50.000,
4. The case of Babu Jan Muhammad and others, cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, is of no help to him On the other hand, following observations made therein support the contentions raised by learned counsel for the respondents:- 'The learned Judges in the High Court................................ ........... Appear to have ignored the fact that it was not for the plaintiffs to vary the valuation in the plaint when it came to taking the matter in appeal against refusal of the Senior Civil Judge to restore the suit. The plaintiffs were bound by the valuation they had thus stated, in a suit of which the Senior v. Civil Judge had become seized, with the consequence that valuation could not be altered by themselves, unless with the permission of the Senior Civil Judge, Equally, when they came to appeal against the adverse order of the Senior Civil Judge, they could not choose a forum on the basis of an altered valuation to be conceived, or made by themselves".
According to the view expressed in the case of Babu Jaa Muhammad and others the petitioner (plaintiff) should have filed his appeal in this Court and not before the learned District Judge because of the valuation of suit which was fixed by him and was not altered y the learned trial Court, especially when for his appeal also he had fixed the same valuation. There was no justification whatsoever for his taking the appeal to the learned District Judge. As or the case of Suba Khan, relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents, it does not deal with the question of determination of the forum of appeal. It has, therefore, little bearing on the point in issue. Upshot of the foregoing discussion is that the order of the learned Additional District Judge regarding the return of appeal is unexceptionable. This civil revision, therefore, fails. It is dismissed with costs.