' This appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. Was directed against the order dated 16-2-1988, whereby the learned Additional District Judge Sialkot accepted the appeal of the vendee- respondent as he was of the view that the learned Civil Judge had failed to follow the directions given in the remand order dated 15-12-1984 of the then learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot. In this remand order the learned trial Court was directed to record fresh evidence on Issue No,2 only and then to decide Issues Nos.2 and 11 again. The findings on all the other issues were found and held to be correct. The Issues No,2 and 11 read as under:-
(2) Whether the plaintiff has deliberately under-valued the suit for the purpose of court-fee, if so, what is the correct valuation and with what effect? OPD
(11) Whether the defendant has effected any improvements upon the suit land, if so, to what extent and of what value? OPD ' The learned trial Court, after recording fresh evidence vide its judgment and decree dated 21-12- 1985, held under Issue No,2 that the suit had been correctly valued for the purpose of court-fee.
Issue No,11 was also answered in the negative and resultantly the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.
On appeal of the vendees the matter has been remanded again for decision of both these issues afresh in the light of the directions contained in the judgment of the Additional District Judge dated 15-12-1984.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised preliminary objection pertaining to the maintainability of the appeal. According to him appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(u) C.P.C. Lies only against the order under Rule 23 of Order XLI, C.P.C., where the appeal would lie from the decree of the appellate Court. It is argued that in view of the valuation the appeal does not lie against the decree of the appellate Court and as such the present first appeal against order is not competent.
Learned counsel further added that in case this appeal is to be treated as revision petition then the court-fee amounting to Rs,2,022.00 will have to be paid.
3. Learned counsel for the pre-emptor-appellant in reply submitted that as the appellant does not want to prolong litigation he is prepared to pay the court-fee, whatever court-fee is payable, and that the appeal be allowed to be converted into a revision petition. He added that the controversy on merits pertains to the question of improvements made, if any, and its costs. Cost of improvements claimed is Rs,10,000.00 and the appellant is prepared to pay the same. It was submitted that in this view of the matter no controversy now remains to be settled and that the proceedings may be disposed of in terms of the offer made by the appellant.
4. I have gone through the finding on Issue No,2 recorded by the learned trial Court and have found that the same is well-based. In fact this finding was not challenged before me. The learned counsel for the respondent in fact based his prelimipary objection on this finding and contended that the appeal would not be competent had a decree been passed in view of the valuation of the suit as declared and held by the learned trial Court. The question of going into Issue No,11 does not arise as the appellant-pre-emptor has agreed to pay the amount of Rs,10,000.00 claimed on account of the alleged improvements.
5. As the offer made, in the circumstances fully satisfies the controversy which remains to be resolved, the same is hereby accepted. The request regarding conversion of the appeal into revision is also allowed. The appeal shall be treated as revision petition and the petitioner is directed to make up deficiency in the court-fee by affixing an additional court-fee of the value of Rs, 2,012.00 within 15 days. The value of improvements amounting to Rs, 10,000.00 as offered will be deposited with the learned trial Court within one month. The A revision petition thus succeeds, the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge dated 16-2-1988 is set aside, with the result that the decree of the trial Court shall stand amended in the terms that suit of the plaintiff-appellant is decreed on payment of Rs, 42,500.00, the sum of Rs,32,500.00 stands already deposited, the balance amounting to Rs,10,000.00 shall be deposited within one month, failing which the suit shall stand dismissed with costs. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
' Before parting with this judgment, another aspect which merits to be noticed is that the learned trial Judge (Syed Nasir Ali Shah, Civil Judge First Class) in his judgment has commented upon the observations of the appellate Court made in the remand order, in objectionable manner. Judicial propriety requries a Judge of the subordinate Court to show respect to the higher Court and this age-old tradition is to be followed in letter and spirit for maintaining the supremacy of law. The officer, it is expected, will refrain in future from finding faults with the findings recorded by a Court superior to his Court.