' ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, J.--In this appeal the appellant has challenged the soundness of the judgment and decree in a pre-emption case of the learned trial Judge dated 30-6-86, only in respect of the market value with a prayer that the sale price determined at Rs,74,240 by the trial Court may be reduced to Rs,21,593.60 and to extent this judgment and decree of the trial Judge be modified.
2. The appellant as a plaintiff instituted a suit for possession through pre-emption regarding sale of agricultural land brought about through Mutation No,4307 dated 5-4-1983 consisting of five Khasra numbers with a total area of 17 Kanals 19 Marlas. This suit was opposed by the respondent.
However, the trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant only for Khasra No,1694 which is 8 Kanals in area at the sale price of Rs,74,240. The appellant is not satisfied with this assessment of the pre- emption money and has, therefore, approached this Court through this appeal to get the said amount reduced to Rs,21,593.60.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding competency of the appeal in this Court and while elaborating his point it was submitted that valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction even in respect of appeal would remain the same as fixed in the plaint. In the plaint the value for the purpose of jurisdiction has been assessed at Rs,90 and, therefore, according to this argument of the learned counsel this cannot be altered but would rather 'remain intact irrespective of the decree having been granted at en/lanced sale price. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that it is the difference between the sale price fixed by the trial Court and the one prayed for to be assessed in the appeal which will be the determining factor for ascertaining jurisdictional value of appeal. Therefore, on the basis of this criterion the sale price on which the suit is decreed being Rs,74,240 while the plaintiff wants its reduction to Rs,21,593.60 and the difference between the two comes to Rs,52,645.40 which would be the value for jurisdiction of appeal.
4.. The forum of appeal is determined under section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 which so far as relevant reads, "Save as aforesaid an appeal from a decree or order of the Civil Judge shall lie:-
(a) To the High Court if the value of the original suit in which the decree or order was made exceeds Rs,50,000.
(b) To the District Judge in .Any other case."
' The term value has been defined in Section 2 Clause 'H' which is to the effect, "Value used with reference to the suit means the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit".
5. It is thus manifest that the original valuation as fixed in the plaint would be effective and valid to determine the forum of appeal irrespective of the fact that the sale price finally fixed by the Court exceeds the value given in the 'plaint. Under Order 20 Rule 14 of the Civil procedure Code when the Court decrees a claim of pre-' emption then it has to specify a day on or before which the sale price assessed by the Court is to be deposited. It cannot be said that the legislature had not in view this provision of law while fixing the jurisdictional value in case of land suit on the basis of land revenue and not according to the market value as it has done in case of house and garden under section 7 (v) (e) of the Court Fees Act. The court-fee in pre-emption cases in matter of land suit will be calculted at the rate of 10 times of the land revenue which is payable. The jurisdictional value in land case is fixed under section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act and the relevant rules framed in this respect provide the jurisdictional value in land case as 30 times the revenue so payable. In the case of the present nature the value for purpose of jurisdiction is fixed at 30 times of the land revenue. The value thus fixed cannot be altered as there is no such provision in the Suits Valuation Act. This value is not provisional but is permanent and cannot be changed with fixation of market value or sale price at much higher rate than it. If the intention of the legislature had been otherwise then like house and garden its jurisdictional value could have been fixed according to the market value. In this view of -the matter the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the jurisdictional value for the purposes of the appeal will be fixed at the difference between the sale price determined by the Court and the one which the appellant requests for to be fixed is erroneous and not in accordance with the said provision of law. This position has been discussed in Supreme Court judgment Ilahi Bakhsh and others v. Mst. Bilqees Begum PLD 1985 SC 393 as under, "It is open to legislature to fix the value of the subject-matter of the suit either at its market value or at any notional or artificial figure. When the legislature decides to fix a jurisdictional value of the subject-matter of a suit then that value must regulate not only the forum of the suit but also the forum of appeal. Thus, the Court of lower grade with jurisdiction of this value will be competent to entertain and decide the suit and the appeal will similarly lie to the Court having jurisdiction to entertain appeals of this value". This dictum was subsequently followed in case Mohammad Nawaz v. Sher Mohammad reported in PLD 1987 SC 284. In this case the learned counsel tried to distinguish the judgment in PLD 1985 SC 393 on the ground that as the improvement amount awarded in the case exceeded fifty thousand rupees and as the grant of that amount was being challenged, therefore, the jurisdictional value was to be assessed at this amount. However, this argument was repelled in these words. "The distinction sought to be drawn by the appellant for challenging the finding with regard to the value of the improvement for the purposes of determining the jurisdictional value of the appeal is, therefore, not valid". So on the analogy of the rule laid down in these two decisions the jurisdictional value for purposes of appeal would not alter merely because the appellant challenges the market value of the suit property which happens to be much more than the value determined for jurisdiction in the plaint. The argument that the. Difference between the sale price fixed by the Court and the one sought or prayed for in the appeal to be fixed will be adopted for determining the jurisdiction value for appeal will not hold good in view of the clear provision of section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 wherein the determining factor for such valuation in the value of the original suit as no other standard or criterion has been provided for any change in such valuation. The rule ',expounded in the said two judgments of the Supreme Court is also to this effect. In this case the jurisdictional value fixed in, the plaint is Rs,90 which will remain intact for ascertaining the forum of appeal and the difference between the sale price fixed by the Court and the one prayed for in the appeal to be fixed would not change the said valuation in the plaint.
6. In view of these reasons the instant appeal in this Court is not competent and accordingly it is directed that the appeal be returned to the appellant for presentation to a proper forum. No order as to costs.