The only law point regarding determination in this revision petition is whether the learned District Judge, Khushab, was legally justified in passing order dated 6th April, 1988 for the return of the revision petition, filed by the petitioner before the said Court for presentation to this Court.
2. The respondents filed a suit for declaration seeking relief against a decree passed against them in another suit on the ground that the same was obtained by fraud etc. The suit was valued at Rs.
5,000 for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. On the application of the respondent/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. The learned trial Court passed an order dated 3rd October, 1987 allowing the respondents to amend the plaint so as to convert it into an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. This order was challenged in revision filed before the learned District Judge, Khushab by the petitioner. The learned District Judge, passed the impugned order for return of the revision petition for presentation to this Court as according to parties the value of the property exce;Aed Rs.
2,00,000, therefore, the District Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition. This revision petition has been presented to this Court in pursuance thereto. '
3. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of service. They are, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that in the plaint the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction was fined at Rs. 5,000, therefore, it was this amount which was the determining factor for ascertaining the forum of appeal and revision and not the actual value of the property which is mentioned in the plaint.
5. The argument has considerable force. It is well settled law that till such time the Court through judicial determination ascertains as to what was the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, the valuation fixed in the plaint shall be taken as determining factor to decide about the forum of appeal and revision. Since the suit was valued at Rs.5:000 for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, therefore, the revision petition against the impugned order passed in the said suit by the learned trial Court was competent before the District Court and the learned District Judge while passing the impugned order dated 6th April, 1988 in fact failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under the law to entertain and decide the said revision petition on merits.
6. The order dated 6th April, 1988 passed by the learned District Judge, Khushab, is set aside. The result is that the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the learned District Judge shall be deemed to be pending which shall be disposed of on merits after hearing the parties. The original memo. Of revision petition alongwith certified copies of the impugned order dated 3rd October, 1987 etc. Appended with the said memo. Presented to the learned District Judge have been placed on the file of this revision petition, therefore, the office is directed to transmit the said memo. Of revision petition alongwith certified copies of order dated 3rd October, 1987 and other documents attached with the said memo: to the learned District Judge, Khushab for its disposal on merits. No order as to costs.
H.B.T./N-303/L